State v. Satyam and others), arising out of Complaint Case No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:198719 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21516 of 2024 Applicant :- Subhash And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 04.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, as well as against order dated 10.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No.2280 of 2023 (State
Facts
Vs. Satyam and others), arising out of Complaint Case No.1341 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar.
Legal Reasoning
the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. In the instant matter, it appears from perusal of impugned order dated 10.05.2024 that the discharge application of applicants has been rejected by merely observing that in application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant has alleged that applicants have abused and caused injuries to him. It appears that the applicants were summoned in the complaint case by order dated 04.03.2023. There is nothing to indicate whether the learned trial Court has considered the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In complaint case which has been committed to Session Court, relevant material for consideration at the time of charge is statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has also not taken into consideration the medial examination report of the complainant. In view of these facts and circumstances, it appears that impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is not in accordance with law. 9. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court concerned to pass an order on discharge application of applicants afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Arguments
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations and that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. There is no evidence that on 07.01.2020 the complainant has gone to withdraw money from ATM and that the injuries shown to complainant are false and concocted. The complainant himself has filed an application that no x-ray report was not provided to him by the hospital and thus, the observation of learned Magistrate in summoning order that x- ray report was perused, is false. The applicants have been summoned in a routine manner without considering facts of the matter. After committal of the case to the Court of Session, applicants have moved an application for discharge, which has been rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 10.05.2024. Learned counsel has also referred police report, wherein the alleged incident was denied. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident the complainant has sustained four injuries including an incised wound and multiple red contusions, and thus, a prima-faice case is made out. It was submitted that in view of statement of complainant and medical documents, a case under Section 308 IPC is also made out. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. So far the impugned summoning order dated 04.03.2022 is concerned, it is apparent that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with undue delay and no explanation for the same has been offered. In respect of summoning order dated 04.03.2022, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of undue delay and laches on the part of the applicants. 7. So far the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is concerned, by that the discharge application of applicants has been rejected. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence at this stage. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or
Decision
10. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 19.12.2024 SP/-