Urmila Devi And 2 Others v. State of U.P & Anr.

2019 (State vs. Ashish and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1202 of 2018, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Ijjat Nagar, District - Bareilly, whereby the application filed by applicant for discharge has been rejected.

#3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The main contention of learned counsel for applicants is that while deciding the discharge application, after quoting the arguments raised on behalf of applicants, the discharge application was dismissed without assigning any proper reason and without discussing the evidence on record. The grounds taken in discharge application have not been considered. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon case of Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023:AHC:242455 and Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another SLP (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2022, decided on 03.05.2024.

#4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the trial court has mentioned the arguments raised on behalf of applicants in detail and discharge application was dismissed. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

#5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

#6. 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. In Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142, the Hon'ble Apex Court held : "6. Having regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case the Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 CrPC and examine the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 CrPC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240 CrPC."

#7. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant no.2 and 3 are brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of informant. It appears that while deciding the discharge application, learned trial court has mentioned arguments raised on behalf of applicants and after that it was observed that charge sheet has been filed against applicants-accused and cognizance has been taken and there was no material to show that no case is made out against applicants. It appears from impugned order that the trial court has not observed anything as to what allegations have been made against applicants, particularly against applicant nos.2 and 3, who are brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of informant. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Apex Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It was further observed that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. It was held that Apex court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

#8. Thus, the trial court must have examined the material on record to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against applicants or not but it appears that the trial court did not consider the matter qua the applicants and the discharge application was rejected by merely quoting the arguments raised on behalf of the applicants. The impugned order does not reflect that what allegations were levelled against applicants. Though, the arguments raised on behalf of applicants were mentioned but the same were not examined in relation to material on record.

#9. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the discharge application of applicants afresh in accordance with law.

#10. The application under section - 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 14.8.2024/S Rawat