Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Upadhayay @ Raja Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1627 of 2019
---------
Krishna Upadhayay @ Raja Pandit ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Raje Kumari Kujur ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 15.06.2022 Pronounced on 06/01/2023
The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2019 passed
by the Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh
in connection with Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No.04 of 2019,
corresponding to G.R No.235 of 2019, by which, the learned Court
below had rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C
on behalf of the petitioner for discharging him in connection with
Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No.04 of 2019, corresponding to G.R
No.235 of 2019.
2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. P.K. Appu, learned counsel for the State
3. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that the petitioner had assaulted his
wife and a complaint was made by the petitioner's daughter namely,
Jyoti Upadhyay in Ramgarh (Mahila) Police Station. Thereafter, the
police came in action and rescued the mother of Jyoti Upadhyay and
brought her to the police Station. The petitioner came in police station
and started scuffle with the police personnel. When the informant of
this case, who is Officer-In-Charge of Ramgarh (Mahila) Police
Station, namely, Raje Kumari Kujur, intervened, the petitioner had
also caught hold of her hand and threatened to see her on the basis
having link with eminent persons and had assaulted her.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and
not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further alleged that the petitioner
is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely
implicated in this case only because of the fact that inspite of there
being no dispute between him (i.e, the petitioner) and his wife or his
son, namely, Aditya Upadhyay, the Officer-in-Charge brought them to
the Police Station and also called the petitioner to Mahila Police
Station, where she was posted as Officer-In-Charge. It is further
submitted that on reaching there, on the pretext that the petitioner had
been misbehaving with his wife, she started assaulting him and for
which, the petitioner has sustained injuries. It is further submitted that
however, instead of getting the petitioner being treated in the hospital
i.e, Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh, she had forcefully sent him to the
Judicial Custody. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of the
Jail, Ramgarh vide Letter No.504 dated 29.04.2019 had also written to
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ramgarh for sending the
petitioner to the Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh for X-ray as he had external
problem in his leg. It is further submitted that there was a fracture
injury in leg of the petitioner and which had also come into light on
the basis of diagnosis. It is further submitted that in spite of his best
efforts, the petitioner could not make any representation before the
competent authorities while he was in judicial custody and has
remained in Jail for a period around three (03) months. It is further
submitted that even he had filed a petition on 17.04.2019 before the
learned Court below for taking action against the police officials. It is
submitted that the petitioner has filed representation before the D.I.G
on 03.08.2019 and D.G.P on 29.08.2019 but no action has been taken.
However, the I.O has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 353,
354, 504 and 506 of I.P.C on the instruction of the police official
including the informant who are the police personnels. It is further
submitted that the learned Court below has also pointed out that no
offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and
hence, impugned order may be set-aside and this Criminal Revision
Application may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the impugned order
passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper. It is further
submitted that the learned Court below has taken lenient view by
omitting Section 354 of Cr.P.C while passing the impugned order. It is
further submitted that the witnesses namely, Jyoti Upadhyay, Rita
Devi, Aditya Upadhyay, Nutan Jaisinta Khalkho, Dhaneshwar Prasad
Mehta, Amrit Sao, whose statements have been recorded at paragraph
Nos.5, 6, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the case diary, have supported the
allegation against this petitioner for assaulting the victim lady and also
making scuffle with the Informant and Police Personnels and hence,
this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and is fit to be
dismissed.
6. Perused the F.I.R and impugned order passed by the learned
Court below and also considered the submissions of both the sides.
7. It appears from the F.I.R that the petitioner is said to have entered
into the Police Station and had started giving threatening to police
personnels for keeping his wife on the basis of written application of
one Jyoti Upadhyay who is the daughter of the petitioner, for
assaulting her mother by this petitioner. It also appears from the F.I.R
that the informant (i.e, Officer-in-Charge) of Mahila Police Station had
tried to intervene then the petitioner had caught hold of her hand and
had threatened her.
8. It transpires from the record that although police has submitted
charge-sheet under Section 323, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C and
cognizance has been taken under Section 323, 353, 354, 504 and 506
of the I.P.C.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Petition under Section 239
of Cr.P.C to discharge him. However, the learned Court below has
partly allowed the petition by omitting Section 354 of the I.P.C but has
passed the order to the effect that offence under Section 323, 353, 504
and 506 of IPC is made out.
10. It is evident from the F.I.R that the petitioner had given
threatening to the Informant in Police Station and is alleged to have
caught hold of her hand and has had threatened her. Although, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Informant is
in habit of filing such cases against various persons. However, this fact
cannot be examined at this stage. It would appear from the F.I.R that
the wife of the petitioner was being taken to the Police Station after
having given information for assaulting his wife by Jyoti Upadhyay
who is the own daughter of this petitioner. The petitioner appears to
have entered into the police station and after having threatened her, he
is said to have caught hold of her hand and scuffled with the police
personnels.
11. It also appears from the impugned order passed by the learned
Court below that not only the police personnels but also the wife, son
and daughter of the petitioner have also supported the prosecution case
and who have stated that the petitioner had scuffled with the police
Personnels and caught hold of her hand and threatened her of dire
consequences.
12. It is well settled that the defence of the accused person cannot be
looked into at the stage of framing of charges.
13. It is well settled that meticulous examination of the statement of
the witnesses has not to be done at the stage of framing of charges by
the learned Court below.
14. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The
Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022
(1) JLJR page 127. Para-25 of the said judgment is as follows:
"Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition
for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and
recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated
by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the
record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents
submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the
submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material
is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge
hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the
material produced by the police."
15. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of
Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in
2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:-
"Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court
would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have
committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction
it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of
charges, the probative value of the material on record 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 conviction. The
Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of
Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a
view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face
value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the
presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution
are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether
the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose
existence of the ingredients of the offence.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para-
17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:-
"Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police
or the documents produced before the Court.
Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, 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, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry
into the pros and cons.
Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at
the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section
227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The
expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is
to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any.
produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to
the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of
the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission
of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the
police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi)."
17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in
the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-29 as follows:-
"Para-39:- The court while considering the question of
framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made
out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie
case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the
material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion
against the accused, which has not been properly explained,
the court will be fully justified in framing charges and
proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the
evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage
of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to find out if
the facts emerging there from taken at their face value
disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At
this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a
trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has
been held that at the stage of framing charges under
Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then
the court should proceed with the trial.
18. In view of the above, I find that no illegality has been committed
by the learned Court below and hence, the impugned order passed by
the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is
required from this Court.
19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application No.1627 of
2019 is dismissed but without cost.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated:06/01/2023,.A.F.R
Raja-
