Deepak Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 880 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Deepak Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78258
 
Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36071 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Dubey,Mohd. Afzal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, 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 with a prayer to quash impugned order dated 20.07.2024 passed Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.442 of 2023 as well as order dated 05.09.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no.2, Aligarh wherein Complaint Case No.13836 of 2022 (Deepak Kumar vs. Vineet and others), P.S.Quarsi, District-Aligarh has been dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the complainant and O.P. nos.2 and 3 have cheated him by defrauding him of Rs.36 lakh, which was transferred to them by way of RTGS in their bank account and when the applicant asked them to return his money, O.P. nos.2 and 3 have threatened him and did not return his money despite repeated request made by the applicant. He next submitted that the impugned orders suffer from material irregularities. He submitted that the court below has failed to consider that on bare perusal of the complaint and statements of witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie, case was made out against O.P. nos.2 and 3. He further contended that the witnesses have fully supported the version of the complaint. He also contended that the court below has dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. without properly appreciating the facts and legal aspect of the case.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the court below after conducting enquiry and recording evidence of complainant and other witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has passed the order dated 05.09.2023, which suffers from no illegality. He submitted that the revisional court has also passed a reasoned order and there is no error of law in it. He further submitted 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 for considering the accused for discharge. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgment 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.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 05.09.2023 Judicial Magistrate, Court no.2, Aligarh wherein Complaint Case No.13836 of 2022 (Deepak Kumar vs. Vineet and others), P.S.Quarsi, District-Aligarh as well as order dated 20.07.2024 passed Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No.442 of 2023 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.5.2025

Manish Himwan