Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70199
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1965 of 2025
Applicant :- Ravindra Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaishankar Prasad Tyagi,Lallan Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Service of notice upon informant is sufficient.
Heard Mr. Lallan Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. as well as perused the entire record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated 07.09.2024 vide which discharge application of the applicant has been rejected by the Court below.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence. There is material contradictions in the FIR, statements of witnesses as well as the informant. It is further submitted that prosecution case is a mala fide and malicious. He further submits that twenty one persons are named in the FIR but the Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against any accused and charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant. The incident is said to have occurred in the presence of police party, which is neither possible nor natural. No offence under S.C./S.T. Act is made out. Even otherwise, by the FIR the opposite party has tried to give a criminal color to the civil litigation pending between the parties. He further submits that without considering the aforesaid facts, the aforesaid impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed the learned Court below and the same has been passed after considering the all relevant facts and material available on record. All other submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant related to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
Before proceeding to adjudge the validity of the impugned order it may be useful to cast a fleeting glance to some of the representative cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have expatiated upon the legal approach to be adopted at the time of framing of the charge or at the time of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged. It shall be advantageous to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, 1977 (4) SCC 39.
Aforesaid case was again referred to in another Apex Court's decision Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Versus Anil Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 (SC) 52 and the Apex Court proceeded to observe as follows:-
"18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
In yet another case of Palwinder Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh reported in AIR 2009 SC 887, the Apex Court had the occasion to reflect upon the scope of adjudication and its ambit at the time of framing of the charge and also about the scope to consider the material produced by the accused at that stage. Following extract may be profitably quoted to clarify the situation:-
"12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in state of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it was held as under :
"23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra's Case holding that the trial Court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided."
The following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary reported in AIR (2009) SC 9 also reiterated the same position of law :-
"10. After analyzing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the differences there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the Court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case to be applied.
11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed."
In fact, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint or charge sheet can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and this Court does not find any justifiable ground to set aside the impugned order refusing the discharge of the accused. This court has not been able to persuade itself to hold that no case against the accused has been made out or to hold that the charge is groundless.
The prayer for quashing or setting aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2024 is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order or the proceedings under challenge. There is absolutely no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The present matter also does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify interference by this Court in order to upset or quash them.
With the above observations, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2025
Rahul.
