The Allahabad High Court while cautioning Trial Court Judges to avoid scrutinising entire Evidence at the stage of Charge, reiterated that at the time of discharge application, only it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta while dealing with an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, observed that the Court isn't required to see detailed inquiry but only facts indicating a prima-facie case so as the accused could be discharged if the charges are groundless.
Learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that the trial court as well as revisional court without application of judicious mind rejected the discharge application of the petitioner. Further submission is that no disclosed offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application for discharge on 6.11.2016 stating therein that no such material evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners on which very basis no offence is made out and main author of the crime is co-accused Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath who made entry in the revenue record without calling the report from Lekhpal of concerned village and the petitioners have not given any application or evidence before him for mutating their names under the proceedings of Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.
It was vehemently argued that since the aforesaid writ petition of co-accused Dhruv Nath Pandey has already been dismissed by the High Court but still learned trial court has not summoned the co-accused Dhruv Nath Pandey and the petitioners are unnecessarily suffering trauma of trial as the whole proceedings against the petitioners have been initiated due to malafide intention and no disclosed offence is made out against the petitioners.
Averring that this is the abuse of the process of law, Learned Counsel for petitioners prayed to allow this petition and set aside the entire proceedings.
The Court after reflecting on Section-239 CrPC, noted that Hon'ble the Apex Court in the catena of judgment has provided that at the time of discharge application, only it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not? The detailed inquiry is not required at the time of framing of charge, the accuse can be discharged only when the charge is groundless.
It referred to Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 Latest Caselaw 7 SC, Palwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2013 Latest Caselaw 370 SC, Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I., 2010 Latest Caselaw 690 SC,.
The Court, in view of the above noted that at the stage of charge the court is not required to consider pros and cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to find out truth.
"Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out. Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge can be framed. The court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any. If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless."
The Court dismissed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after noting that impugned orders were passed keeping in view the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
