Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C/S.T. Act in Complaint Case No. 33 of 2019 (Bhagwan Dei Vs.Ram Bharose and others), under Sections 452, 354 ka, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C & Section 3(2)5A of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kyoladiya, District- Bareilly whereby discharge application moved by the appellants has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a counter blast case. Earlier, wife of the applicant no.1 has lodged an FIR against husband and other family members of the opposite party no.2 on 18.6.2018 with the allegation that family members of opposite party no.2 have illegal possession over the land of the appellants and when the appellant's wife protested, the opposite parties have assaulted appellant's wife as well as daughter. The alleged incident is said to have been taken place on

17.6.2018 and the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2018 i.e. after more than four months of the alleged incident. The matter was investigated and Investigating Officer after completing investigation, has submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed protest petition before the court concerned on 29.4.2019 and the court concerned has treated the same as complaint case. Thereafter, statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the court concerned has summoned the appellants. Being aggrieved with cognizance/summoning order dated 8.4.2021, they moved discharge application on 24.1.2024, which was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 9.7.2025 without applying judicial mind. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 2 CRLA No. 9091 of 2025

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and investigation of this case has been conducted in the right and genuine manner by the Investigating Officer of this case and that is why charge sheet was submitted against the present appellants. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

8. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. 3 CRLA No. 9091 of 2025 Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

9. I have gone through the impugned order as well as submissions advanced by the parites. Impugned order itself reflects that charges against the accused have already been framed and the grounds taken for discharge cannot be considered at this stage as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence produced by the accused can be adjudged during trial. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 28, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C/S.T. Act in Complaint Case No. 33 of 2019 (Bhagwan Dei Vs.Ram Bharose and others), under Sections 452, 354 ka, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C & Section 3(2)5A of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kyoladiya, District- Bareilly whereby discharge application moved by the appellants has been rejected.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a counter blast case. Earlier, wife of the applicant no.1 has lodged an FIR against husband and other family members of the opposite party no.2 on 18.6.2018 with the allegation that family members of opposite party no.2 have illegal possession over the land of the appellants and when the appellant's wife protested, the opposite parties have assaulted appellant's wife as well as daughter. The alleged incident is said to have been taken place on

17.6.2018 and the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2018 i.e. after more than four months of the alleged incident. The matter was investigated and Investigating Officer after completing investigation, has submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed protest petition before the court concerned on 29.4.2019 and the court concerned has treated the same as complaint case. Thereafter, statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the court concerned has summoned the appellants. Being aggrieved with cognizance/summoning order dated 8.4.2021, they moved discharge application on 24.1.2024, which was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 9.7.2025 without applying judicial mind. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 2 CRLA No. 9091 of 2025

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and investigation of this case has been conducted in the right and genuine manner by the Investigating Officer of this case and that is why charge sheet was submitted against the present appellants. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

8. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. 3 CRLA No. 9091 of 2025 Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

9. I have gone through the impugned order as well as submissions advanced by the parites. Impugned order itself reflects that charges against the accused have already been framed and the grounds taken for discharge cannot be considered at this stage as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence produced by the accused can be adjudged during trial. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 28, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)