Allahabad High Court
Vijay Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7534 of 2022
Applicant :- Vijay Pal And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao in Session Trial No.810 of 2020 and the order of charge dated 22.09.2021, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Unnao in Session Trial No.810 of 2020 "State vs. Vijaypal and others" as well as order of non-bailable warrant dated 06.08.2022 issued against the applicants in Sessions Trial No.810 of 2020 "State vs. Vijaypal and others".
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that initially, this case originated due to lodging of a non-cognizable report against the four accused persons including the applicants wherein it is mentioned that the first informant was assaulted by the applicants. Subsequently, the matter was investigated and charge sheet under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 313 I.P.C. was submitted against two accused persons, namely, Madanpal and Manohar whereas charge sheet under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C. only was submitted against the present applicants, namely, Vijay Pal and Shri Mohan. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of material available on record, framed charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 313 and 504 I.P.C. against all accused persons including the present applicants. The fact that the injured persons including Sunita, who is wife of first informant were assaulted by the accused persons including the present applicants, was reiterated by P.W.-1, Ram Kumar, whose statement has already been recorded in the Court of Sessions. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid fact, the application 20-C moved by the applicants to drop charge under Section 313 I.P.C. against them, was rejected by learned court below.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter and wrongly held that there was enough material available on record to frame charge against the present applicants under Section 313 I.P.C. Even otherwise, no material could be collected during investigation which warrants framing of charge against the applicants under Section 313 I.P.C.
In view of the aforesaid, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order being palpably illegal deserves to be set aside and a direction needs to be issued to learned court below to reconsider the matter a fresh.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that at this stage, according to settled legal position availability of prima facie material warranting framing of charge against the applicants is enough. No roving or meticulous enquiry is either stipulated or warranted at this stage. Therefore, learned trial Court, after appreciating the law correctly, had passed the impugned order wherein no interference by this Court is warranted.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that a non-cognizable report came to be filed against the applicants. In the said non-cognizable report, it is mentioned that the injured persons were assaulted by the present applicants.
At the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial.
To substantiate aforesaid proposition, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 and Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 1963 may be usefully referred to.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, at this stage, only prima facie availability of material warranting framing of charge against the applicants is enough and no roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the prosecution's case.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
However, it is needless to mention that in case the applicants, who have already been granted bail under other sections except Section 313 I.P.C. by the competent Court, seek bail in accordance with settled law, the same shall be disposed of by the learned court below in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2022
Mahesh
