Jai Bhagwan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 17929 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jai Bhagwan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90902
 
Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2152 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Jai Bhagwan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ravikant Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Chandraul, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 770 of 2019 (State vs. Jai Bhagwan), arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2018, under sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar and order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the charges against the applicant was framed and further be pleased to allow the application under section 228 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from Case Crime No. 9 of 2018, under sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 324 I.P.C., P.S. Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar.

3. On 16.01.2018, a NCR was filed by the opposite party no. 2. After taking into account the medico legal report of the injured, case was converted into cognizable case and on 17.01.2018, F.I.R. of the incident was lodged under sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and during investigation section 324 I.P.C. was added and police after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant on 05.04.2018. During pendency of trial, the applicant has moved discharge application which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2019, which is under challenge in this application. The trial court finally framed the charges against the applicant vide impugned order dated 01.01.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant primarily submits that the injuries on the face of the record are false, as the injured has submitted two injury reports of different hospitals, first of District Hospital Muzaffarnagar and second one was from Jagdamba Super Specialty Hospital and there are material contradiction in the medical examination reports. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 with malafide intention had produced the aforesaid documents. There was no credible evidence to incriminate the applicant in the instant case. The applicant was not involved in the aforesaid case, in fact no such incident was ever happened. The Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet illegally and arbitrary manner. 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. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D vs. Rebatilata Koley ETC, AIR 2011 SC 1090 and have also relied upon the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 LawSuit (SC) 69.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the allegation levelled in the FIR is serious in nature. He submits during investigation sufficient material with regard to involvement of the applicant in the incident was found, on the basis of which the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet and the Court below has summoned the applicant. 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. Considering the submissions advanced by the 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 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 applicant as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicant.

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 25.11.2019 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.5.2024

Bhanu