Iqwal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 18448 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145592
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3427 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Iqwal Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

As per office report dated 20.7.2023, notices issued to opposite party no.2 was served personally.

Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Heard Sri Jitendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.5.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-IInd, Court No.17, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No.3294 of 2018, by which discharge application filed on behalf of accused-revisionist under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 on altogether with incorrect facts and the Investigating Officer without conducting fair investigation had submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist and the learned trial court in a very casual manner had summoned the revisionist in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that no offence against the revisionist is made out and as such the revisionist had moved an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. It is further submitted that the revisionist has not taken any amount from the opposite party no.2 as alleged in the F.I.R. and the entire story is cooked up.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 was investigated by the Police and after due investigation the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist and the revisionist was rightly summoned by the trial court. It is further submitted that learned court below after considering the entire evidence and materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, had rightly passed the order dated 30.5.2023 rejecting the discharge application and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out and the criminal revision filed on behalf of revisionist-accused is liable to be dismissed.

The provision of discharge is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561. The relevant paragraph No.11 is quoted herein below:-

"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."

The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709, has held that at the time of deciding the application for discharge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and consider the entire evidence and material which are available on record. Paragraph 29 of the judgment of Suresh Rajan(supra) is quoted below:-

"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground against the accused or not and the Court is not required to consider the evidence in detail and appreciate evidence to conclude that there are sufficient materials for conviction of the accused. Only prima facie satisfaction of learned Magistrate is required at the time of framing of charges. Relevant paragraph 7 is quoted herein below:-

"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."

It is well settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient report in proceeding against the accused or not. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and reach at the conclusion for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out for proceeding further, then the charge is to be framed.

Learned trial court after considering the evidence and materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation had recorded his prima-facie satisfaction regarding involvement of revisionist in the present case and has rightly rejected the discharge application filed on behalf of revisionist/accused person. The order passed by court below is based on material and there is no infirmity or illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed, accordingly.

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Order Date :- 21.7.2023

Kpy