Others v. State of U.P. and Another). Aforesaid application was disposed of final
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145856 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15939 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramchandra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Gaur,Karmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Gaur, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicants-Ramchandra and 2 others have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 9.2.2024, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court NO.2, Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 93 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramchandra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2020,under sections 336, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station- Kuraoli, District- Mainpuri, whereby discharge application filed by applicant in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge in aforementioned criminal case, has been rejected by Court below. Record shows that feeling aggrieved by the police report (charge- sheet) dated 13.7.2020, submitted by Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case pending against applicant, they approached this Court by means of an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8948 of 2022 (Ram Chandra and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Aforesaid application was disposed of finally vide order dated 22.4.2022. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under: "This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 2260 of 2020 (State Vs. Ram Chandra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2020 under Sections 336, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Kuraoli, District Mainpuri pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, District Mainpuri as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 13.07.2020 filed in the aforesaid case. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.It is further contended that the applicants are on bail. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
Decision
The application stands disposed of. " Subsequent to above order dated 22.4.2022, applicants filed an application dated 16.2.2023 in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge in above mentioned criminal case. The same has been rejected by Court below by means of order impugned dated 9.2.2024. Thus feeling aggrieved by above order dated 9.2.2024, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, applicants have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number., The concerned Judicial Magistrate without considering the papers accompanying the police report on the basis of vague and bald observation has rejected the discharge application filed by applicants. The Jurisdictional Magistrate has thus exercised his jurisdiction in a casual and caviliar fashion. As such, order impugned is unsustainable in law and fact. Consequently, same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He has invited the attention of Court to the order impugned and on basis thereof he submits that Court below while passing the order impugned dated 9.2.2024 has returned clear and cogent finding that during course of investigation, sufficent material was collected by Investigaging Officer which is against the applicants. On the basis of above, the police report was submitted. He, therefore, contends that as per papers accompanying the police report, the prosecution of applicant can be sustained. Learned A.G.A. further submits that Court while deciding the discharge application filed by an accused the Court further is not required to return a finding that on the basis of material on record, no conviction of the accused is possible. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the three judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556, With reference to the same, the learned A.G.A. contends that prosecution of an accused can be sustained if there is sufficient material on record against the accused, if prima facie the prosecution can be sustained or there is grave suspicion against accused. In view of the findings recorded by the concerned Magistrate, in the order impugned which also could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants as illegal, perverse or erroneous, no good ground has emerged so as to warrant interference by this Court. As such, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objectiond raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present application could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. Furthermore, from the perusal of the order impugned, it cannot be said that the Court below while passing the order impugned has committed a jurisdictional error or has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity, vitiating the order impugned and warranting interference by this Court. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Arshad