High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. There is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.2.

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. The revisionist has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that the revisionist is working on the post of 'Sweeper' as a State Government employee and on the date and time of the occurrence he was on duty at his work place and in support of this submission the revisionist has submitted the attendance register and a certificate issued by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent reason. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. The plea of alibi may be raised and considered at the stage of evidence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. 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.

7. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist made assault upon the informant and his father with the aid of kudal, kicking and fisting alongwith other accused persons on 1.12.2023 at 7.45 a.m. He was named in the F.I.R. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Further, sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the revisionist during investigation for his active participation in the incident which prima facie shows that the offence has been committed by the revisionist. The burden to prove the plea of alibi lies exclusively upon the revisionist / accused which will be tested by the Court concerned at the time of evidence. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. There is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.2.

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. The revisionist has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that the revisionist is working on the post of 'Sweeper' as a State Government employee and on the date and time of the occurrence he was on duty at his work place and in support of this submission the revisionist has submitted the attendance register and a certificate issued by the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent reason. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. The plea of alibi may be raised and considered at the stage of evidence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. 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.

7. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist made assault upon the informant and his father with the aid of kudal, kicking and fisting alongwith other accused persons on 1.12.2023 at 7.45 a.m. He was named in the F.I.R. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Further, sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the revisionist during investigation for his active participation in the incident which prima facie shows that the offence has been committed by the revisionist. The burden to prove the plea of alibi lies exclusively upon the revisionist / accused which will be tested by the Court concerned at the time of evidence. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025