Jasveer And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6935 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jasveer And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2025

Author: Deepak Verma

Bench: Deepak Verma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145602
 
Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2856 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Jasveer And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Vinay Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Baghpat as well as entire proceeding of Session Trial No.1721 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Jasveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 & 326 I.P.C., Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat, pending in the court of Session Judge, Baghpat.

3. It is alleged in the FIR that on 11.07.2021 named accused persons came to the house of the informant with tamancha (country made pistol), tabal & sharp edged weapons, started hurling abusive language, thereafter, assaulted informant and other persons with intention to kill, as a result thereof injured received grievous injury.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR dated 11.07.2021 in Case Crime No.238 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 324, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Bilauni, District Baghpat was lodged by father of the applicant nos.3 & 4 against the sons of opposite party no.2 and other accused persons, thereafter, in counterblast the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the applicants after a lapse of 25 days. Applicants' side received grievous injury and they were medically examined by the doctor. Learned counsel for the applicants states that injured person was medically examined by the doctor on 11.07.2021 and C.T. scan was conducted on 13.07.2021. At the time of C.T. Scan, injured was in jail and jail authority did not send injured Ashish for C.T. scan. The father of the applicant no.3 Ram Chandra get query from the jail authority under Right to Information Act, 2005 and the jail authority has given reply under Right to Information Act on 18.01.2023 that during arrest, injured Ashish on 13.07.2021 was not sent to District Hospital for C.T.scan. Thereafter, applicants moved discharge application under section 239 Cr.P.C. as injured Ashish was not examined and C.T.scan report is forged and fabricated. Learned Session Judge, Baghpat without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the application dated 20.07.2023 under section 239 Cr.P.C. by order dated 02.01.2025.

5. Instant 482 Cr.P.C. application has filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2025 rejecting the application of the applicants for discharge on the ground that the applicants were not present on the spot and Investigating Officer has not collected material evidence under section 307 I.P.C. and prima-facie no offence under section 326 I.P.C. is made out but learned magistrate in arbitrary manner put up the case for framing charge under sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 324 & 326 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in application under section 239 Cr.P.C.,it has specifically stated that as per Right to Information Act, it is apparent that the injured Ashish was not sent for C.T. scan on 13.07.2021, therefore, injury is not supporting the offence in which trial court has put up the case for framing of charge. As per as evidence produced by the applicants before the trial court that no offence under section 326 I.P.C. is made out and framing of charge under section 326 I.P.C. vitiates the proceeding. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the documents produced by prosecution is forged and fabricated documents.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that at this stage, court has to only examine the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and, moreover, court has not to go deep into merit of the case. He has raised objection that the documents collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation is forged and fabricated and same cannot be examined at this stage. Learned counsel for the informant has produced documents and has placed reliance over them is not the part of the case diary. Moreover, against the rejection of discharge application, the remedy is to file revision.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 476: (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 21:2012 SCC Online SC 931 has held that "While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and there probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge"

8. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another: (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4: 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 609: 1978 SCC Online SC 312, the Hon'ble Apex court in held in Para-10 of the judgement as under:-

"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 Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece 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 however 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."

9. Considered the submission of both the parties and perused the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Baghpat. From the record, it is apparent that injured has received injuries and Investigating Officer has not found any evidence under section 307 I.P.C., therefore, submitted charge-sheet under sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 324 & 326 I.P.C. The argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have not received injury and documents produced by the Investigating Officer is in regard to injury, is false and fabricated in view of the report submitted by the jail authority that on 13.07.2021, deceased Ashish was not sent for C.T.scan, belie the whole prosecution story, is not tenable in the eye of law and in view of the Apex Court judgments. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is based upon the documents which is not part of the case diary and it has been filed in defence. Trial court while considering the discharge application as well as framing of charge only material required for consideration is the document produced by the Investigating Officer. From the record, it is apparent that injured has received grievous injury. Whether the document produced by the Investigating Officer is false and fabricated, required examination. The order passed by Session Judge dated 02.01.2025 is just and proper based on record submitted by the Investigating Officer. There is no abuse of process of Court. No interference is warranted. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application of applicants- Jasveer, Satveer, Sumit, Vikky, Sanket & Kulveer, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

Order Date :- 23.8.2025/SKD