Allahabad High Court
Ram Murat Sharma Alias Ram Murat Mishra ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88527
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8913 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Murat Sharma Alias Ram Murat Mishra And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Chadraul, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri M.K. Pandey, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District-Kushinagar, Place-Padrauna in Sessions Trial No.80 of 2020, Case Crime No.1049 of 2015, under sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.Kuber Sthan, District-Kushinagar (State vs. Rammurat Sharma and others) pending before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act Court, District-Kushingar.
3. An FIR was lodged on 22.07.2015 against the applicants by O.P. no.2 under Section 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act in which it was alleged that the applicants armed with lathi, danda had forcefully entered into the house of O.P. no.2 while he was getting some construction work done and demolished the newly constructed wall. When wife of O.P. no.2 objected, applicant tore her blouse and when she ran away, the accused also entered the house and pushed her on the ground by catching her. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants on 25.09.2015. Thereafter, the applicants had moved discharge application on 22.11.2023, which has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 16.02.2024, which is under challenge in this application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits there was no credible evidence to incriminate the applicants in the instant case. He further submits that the trial court has rejected the discharge application without properly appreciating the facts and legal aspect of the case. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR against the applicants are of serious nature. He submits that the trial court has committed no error while passing the cognizance order. He further submits that as far as the impugned order passed on the discharge application is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Court has to look into and consider the material placed before the Court by the Investigating Agency while framing of charge or considering the accused for discharge. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that for framing of charge and discharge it is only the material produced by the prosecution alone, which is to be considered for framing of charge or discharge.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 has held as follows:-
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This how ever does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
8. This ratio was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2022 (9) SCC 577 in which the ratio laid down in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) was upheld.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, has observed that the law on the issue of discharge is well settled that, at the time of charge the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no offence is made out in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution then only the accused can be discharged.
10. In the instant case, the trial court while rejecting the discharge application has come to a finding that the material produced by the prosecution is enough and prima facie case is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged. In the instant matter, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicants.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, I see no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Manish Himwan
