Bombay High Court
Manoj Doliram Kuthe vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 19 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:6750
1 947wp58.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 58 OF 2025
PETITIONER Manoj s/o Doliram Kuthe,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation: Private,
R/o c/o Sandhya Bagmare, Plot No. 31,
Railway Station Road, Bhandewadi,
Nagpur, Maharashtra.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R. Kadam, counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Sneha S.Dhote, APP for respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 19/06/2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of
rkn
2 947wp58.2025.odt
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur,
rejecting the application for discharge, which is confirmed by the
Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 112/2024 by order dated
18/12/2024.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the
present petition are as under;
Sushant Kumar Meshram has lodged the report,
alleging that the applicant, who was working in his office as an
admission officer, has committed theft of One Laptop, Two hard
disks, and Two pendrives. The informant is running a Training
Center by name Academy of Fire and Safety. Thus, as per the
allegation, the present petitioner has committed a theft of Rs.
42,000/-. On the basis of the said report, police have registered
the crime against the present applicant. During the investigation,
the investigating officer visited the house of the present applicant
and drawn the spot panchanama. The statements were also
recorded. The seizure panchanama was also drawn. After
completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet is filed.
rkn
3 947wp58.2025.odt
5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant filed an
application for discharge on the contention that, during the house
search panchanama, nothing is recovered from his house, neither
the incriminating articles nor any other documents. Thus, except
the statement of the informant, there is no other material to
connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. Thus, as
there is no prima-facie material to connect the present applicant
with the alleged offence, no purpose would be served by insisting
him to face the trial, and therefore, he be discharged from the
charges.
6. The said application is strongly opposed by the State
on the ground that, at the stage of framing of the charge, what is
to be looked into is the material, which is collected during the
investigation, and the defence of the applicant is not to be taken
into consideration. Prima-facie material points out the involvement
of the present applicant, as the said laptop is recovered at the
instance of the present applicant from the office, and therefore,
prima-facie material is there to connect the present applicant with
the alleged offence. The learned magistrate has considered all
these aspects and rejected the application.
rkn
4 947wp58.2025.odt
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
applicant preferred the criminal revision before the Additional
Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur. The learned Judge observed that upon
perusal of the charge-sheet, a Sony company laptop bag and a pen
drive were seized from the office where the applicant works, at his
instance. Therefore, sufficient material exists to connect the
applicant with the alleged offence, and the revision was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
present writ petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that
both the courts below had not considered that no prima-facie
material was collected during the investigation, which would be
sufficient to frame the charge, and therefore the order passed by
the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner to
be discharged from the charges.
9. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is
necessary to see what are the considerations for considering the
application for discharge.
10. It is a settled principle of law that, at the stage of
considering an application for discharge, the Court must proceed
rkn
5 947wp58.2025.odt
on the assumption that the material, which has been brought on
record by the prosecution, is true and evaluate the material in
order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material,
taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence alleged.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU / SC /
1113/2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of law. In its
earlier decisions in the cases of (1) State of Tamil Nadu vs.
N.Suresh Rajan and ors, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and (2)
the State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996)
4 SCC 659 and (3) The State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported
in (2000) 6 SCC 338, has held thus:
"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on an assumption that the material which has
been brought on record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate said material in order to determine whether
the facts emerging from the material taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence alleged.
rkn
6 947wp58.2025.odt
12. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan
and ors, (2014) 11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions
of law laid down on this subject has held:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for discharge, the
court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or
act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to
find out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite
that at the stage of consideration of an application for
discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption
that the materials brought on record by the prosecution
are true and evaluate the said materials and documents
with a view to find out whether the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials
has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go
deep into the matter and hold that the materials would
not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to
be considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed and
not whether a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks
rkn
7 947wp58.2025.odt
that the accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its probative
value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction,
the court has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law does not
permit a mini trial at this stage."
13. Thus, the defence of the accused is not to be looked
into, at this stage when the application is filed for discharge. The
expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 or 239 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be understood, as the
documents and materials, if any, produced by the prosecution. The
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give any
right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of
framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The
primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test
of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative
value of materials on record need not be gone into. At the stage of
entertaining the application for discharge, the court cannot
analyze or direct the evidence of the prosecution and defence on
the points or possible cross examination of the defence.
rkn
8 947wp58.2025.odt
14. In the light of above said proposition of law, if the
facts of the present case are taken into consideration, at this stage,
there is sufficient material to frame the charge as incriminating
material is recovered at the instance of the present applicant.
Thus, there is no merit of in the writ petition, and no interference
is called for.
The writ petition being devoid of merits and liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
a] The writ petition is dismissed.
b] Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
