High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.82979/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0026/2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and to quash the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by means of which application for discharge filed by the applicant has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that informant- Rakesh Kumar Chattree, who was working on the post of Principal, Christ Church College, Lucknow since last 14 years, has alleged that the college was being run by a society i.e. 'Christ Church McConaghy School Society' which is registered with the office of Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and a forged list of members was produced before the Registrar by Secretary of the said society.

4. Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR is lodged in retaliation as the applicant, who was working as Principle of one of the colleges of the Christ Church McConaghy School Society (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') was inducted 2 as Secretary of the Society and the informant was the outgoing Secretary of the Society and thereafter he lodged an FIR with false and baseless allegations and without any cogent evidence. He added that several litigation are pending with respect to the dispute of Society and the issue regarding the list of members, stated to be forged, is still to be decided by this Court. He argued that in fact the dispute is of civil nature as the appointment of the applicant as the Secretary of the Society may be on some disputed list of members but no forgery is committed by him thus for mounting pressure, the present FIR is lodged, so as to the applicant may demit the office.

5. He further submitted that after lodging of the FIR charge-sheet was filed and then the matter was proceeded and after issuance of process, the applicant moved an application for discharge before the learned trial Court which has been rejected in cavalier and whimsical manner. He also submits that since the stage of discharge is a valuable stage, therefore, the trial Court should not proceed to decide such application in a cursory manner. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the finding of the trial Court and submitted that it is evident that no reason is assigned for rejecting the discharge application which is not permitted under the law.

6. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 566 (Shyam Sundar Agrawalla Vs. State of Odisha and another) and has referred paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under: “8. Reference to the impugned order reveals that after relating the relevant facts the Court below has referred to the relevant statutory provision namely, Section 245of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Court below abruptly held that the evidence of the witnesses, FIR, Chargesheet and adjoining documents prima facie attract the alleged offences and that the allegations made by the prosecution are not groundless. On such ground, the discharge application was rejected. Not a whisper has been made as to why the grounds urged by the petitioner to discharge him from the case were considered unacceptable. In fact, copy of the discharge petition available in the case record shows that 3 the petitioner had raised specific grounds and tried to justify the same by giving detailed reasons. Whether the same would ultimately be acceptable or not is a thing that can be decided only if the same is considered. But without even considering the grounds raised, it cannot be said that there are no grounds to discharge the petition.

9. It would be apposite at this stage to quote Section 245ofCr.P.C., which reads as follows: "Section 245. When accused shall be discharged.-- (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless."

10. Though it has been held that the Court is not required to record reasons for framing charge but it is the settled position of law that rejection of a discharge petition and framing of charge are not one and the same thing. It is only after an application for discharge is dealt with that the question of framing charge arises. The language used in Section 245, "and record his reasons for so doing" cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed and not when the same is rejected. In a similar case decided by this Court, that is, Shibaram Sahu vrs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) Department1 this Court held as follows: "Evidently, while dealing with the petition for discharge, the court has jumped to the next stage, i.e., framing of charge and taking into account the considerations required for the latter stage, has rejected the petition for discharge. It is reiterated that when an application for discharge is filed, the same has to be disposed of by a reasoned order, which is clear from the use of the expression "and record his reasons for so doing" in Section 239 which obviously cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed but not when the same is rejected. Obviously the statutory intent cannot be understood in a manner that the Court is to record its reasons only when allowing the petition but not when rejecting it. Such a proposition would be absurd. In the instant case, the petitioner had raised two grounds while seeking discharge, namely, absence of valid sanction and absence of necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of Section 409 IPC. It was therefore, incumbent upon the court below to specifically deal with the two grounds and to state as to why such grounds are 4 acceptable or not acceptable. To amplify, the Court ought to have given its findings as regards the validity of sanction as also the existence or otherwise of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC. In view of the statutory mandate discussed above, it will not do for the court to simply make a bald observation as quoted hereinabove while dealing with the application for discharge. What the Court cited as reason to reject the apprehension is actually supposed to be the reason for framing charge, the stage of which had not yet come. In this regard, a reference can be made to the case of L. Muniswamy (supra) "xxxxxxxxxx. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2057 for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Emphasis supplied) It is therefore, abundantly clear that it is incumbent upon the court to record its reasons for accepting or not accepting the specific grounds urged by the accused to discharge him from the case."

7. Referring the aforesaid judgment, he submits that in so-many words, it is held that the rejection of a discharge application and framing of charge, are not one and the same, that is why, the application for discharge is dealt with, after recording reasons.

8. Concluding his argument, he submits that the learned trial Court apparently did not record any reason and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside.

9. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that a detailed order is passed, after recording the arguments of both the parties and the findings are recorded exhaustively and, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the fact that the matter pertains to a dispute regarding 5 Secretaryship of the Society which is pending consideration before this Court in several petitions and further considering that the reason is not assigned and the valuable right of the applicant has been declined by rejecting the discharge application, this Court prima facie finds force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, thus, the matter requires consideration.

12. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 on taking appropriate steps within one week, returnable at an early date.

13. List/put up this matter in the 2nd week of October, 2025.

14. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

15. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Criminal Case No.82979/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0026/2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 21.8.2025 MVS/-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.82979/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0026/2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and to quash the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by means of which application for discharge filed by the applicant has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that informant- Rakesh Kumar Chattree, who was working on the post of Principal, Christ Church College, Lucknow since last 14 years, has alleged that the college was being run by a society i.e. 'Christ Church McConaghy School Society' which is registered with the office of Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and a forged list of members was produced before the Registrar by Secretary of the said society.

4. Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR is lodged in retaliation as the applicant, who was working as Principle of one of the colleges of the Christ Church McConaghy School Society (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') was inducted 2 as Secretary of the Society and the informant was the outgoing Secretary of the Society and thereafter he lodged an FIR with false and baseless allegations and without any cogent evidence. He added that several litigation are pending with respect to the dispute of Society and the issue regarding the list of members, stated to be forged, is still to be decided by this Court. He argued that in fact the dispute is of civil nature as the appointment of the applicant as the Secretary of the Society may be on some disputed list of members but no forgery is committed by him thus for mounting pressure, the present FIR is lodged, so as to the applicant may demit the office.

5. He further submitted that after lodging of the FIR charge-sheet was filed and then the matter was proceeded and after issuance of process, the applicant moved an application for discharge before the learned trial Court which has been rejected in cavalier and whimsical manner. He also submits that since the stage of discharge is a valuable stage, therefore, the trial Court should not proceed to decide such application in a cursory manner. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the finding of the trial Court and submitted that it is evident that no reason is assigned for rejecting the discharge application which is not permitted under the law.

6. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 566 (Shyam Sundar Agrawalla Vs. State of Odisha and another) and has referred paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under: “8. Reference to the impugned order reveals that after relating the relevant facts the Court below has referred to the relevant statutory provision namely, Section 245of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Court below abruptly held that the evidence of the witnesses, FIR, Chargesheet and adjoining documents prima facie attract the alleged offences and that the allegations made by the prosecution are not groundless. On such ground, the discharge application was rejected. Not a whisper has been made as to why the grounds urged by the petitioner to discharge him from the case were considered unacceptable. In fact, copy of the discharge petition available in the case record shows that 3 the petitioner had raised specific grounds and tried to justify the same by giving detailed reasons. Whether the same would ultimately be acceptable or not is a thing that can be decided only if the same is considered. But without even considering the grounds raised, it cannot be said that there are no grounds to discharge the petition.

9. It would be apposite at this stage to quote Section 245ofCr.P.C., which reads as follows: "Section 245. When accused shall be discharged.-- (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless."

10. Though it has been held that the Court is not required to record reasons for framing charge but it is the settled position of law that rejection of a discharge petition and framing of charge are not one and the same thing. It is only after an application for discharge is dealt with that the question of framing charge arises. The language used in Section 245, "and record his reasons for so doing" cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed and not when the same is rejected. In a similar case decided by this Court, that is, Shibaram Sahu vrs. State of Odisha (Vigilance) Department1 this Court held as follows: "Evidently, while dealing with the petition for discharge, the court has jumped to the next stage, i.e., framing of charge and taking into account the considerations required for the latter stage, has rejected the petition for discharge. It is reiterated that when an application for discharge is filed, the same has to be disposed of by a reasoned order, which is clear from the use of the expression "and record his reasons for so doing" in Section 239 which obviously cannot refer only to a case where the application for discharge is allowed but not when the same is rejected. Obviously the statutory intent cannot be understood in a manner that the Court is to record its reasons only when allowing the petition but not when rejecting it. Such a proposition would be absurd. In the instant case, the petitioner had raised two grounds while seeking discharge, namely, absence of valid sanction and absence of necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of Section 409 IPC. It was therefore, incumbent upon the court below to specifically deal with the two grounds and to state as to why such grounds are 4 acceptable or not acceptable. To amplify, the Court ought to have given its findings as regards the validity of sanction as also the existence or otherwise of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC. In view of the statutory mandate discussed above, it will not do for the court to simply make a bald observation as quoted hereinabove while dealing with the application for discharge. What the Court cited as reason to reject the apprehension is actually supposed to be the reason for framing charge, the stage of which had not yet come. In this regard, a reference can be made to the case of L. Muniswamy (supra) "xxxxxxxxxx. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2057 for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Emphasis supplied) It is therefore, abundantly clear that it is incumbent upon the court to record its reasons for accepting or not accepting the specific grounds urged by the accused to discharge him from the case."

7. Referring the aforesaid judgment, he submits that in so-many words, it is held that the rejection of a discharge application and framing of charge, are not one and the same, that is why, the application for discharge is dealt with, after recording reasons.

8. Concluding his argument, he submits that the learned trial Court apparently did not record any reason and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside.

9. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that a detailed order is passed, after recording the arguments of both the parties and the findings are recorded exhaustively and, therefore, there is no ambiguity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.

10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the fact that the matter pertains to a dispute regarding 5 Secretaryship of the Society which is pending consideration before this Court in several petitions and further considering that the reason is not assigned and the valuable right of the applicant has been declined by rejecting the discharge application, this Court prima facie finds force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, thus, the matter requires consideration.

12. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 on taking appropriate steps within one week, returnable at an early date.

13. List/put up this matter in the 2nd week of October, 2025.

14. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

15. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Criminal Case No.82979/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.0026/2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 21.8.2025 MVS/-