State v. Ankur Pal and Others), by which the
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11793 of 2023 Applicant :- Ankur Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
Shri Amit Tripathi, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rampur in Criminal Case No. 3779 of 2020 (State Vs. Ankur Pal and Others), by which the applicants application for discharge has been rejected and order dated 24.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, District Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2022 (Ankur Pal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 324 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, affirming the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. Brief facts giving rise to this application is that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants alleging therein that the opposite party no.2 was married to applicant no.1 on 09.03.2019. After the said marriage the applicants started making demand of additional dowry and for non-fulfillment of the same, they used to torture her, maltreated her and subjected her to cruelty, however, she continued to bear their illegal acts hoping that one day they shall mend their ways and things would be set right. It is further alleged that on 29.11.2019 at about 03.00 p.m., her husband Ankur Pal, father-in-law Dharampal, mother-in-law Radha Devi and sister-in-law Payal together hatched a conspiracy and assaulted her by kicks, fists and belt and pulled her hair and turned her out of her matrimonial home in wearing apparels. She somehow reached her parents house, however, she did not lodge any complaint, though they continued to press their demand of dowry and in continuation to the said illegal demands, on 17.02.2020 at about 08.00 p.m. in the evening, the applicants Ankur Pal, father-in-law Dharampal, mother-in-law Radha Devi and sister-in-law Payal forcibly entered in her house hurling abuses and repeated their demand for dowry and again assaulted her. The husband of the victim Ankur Pal misbehaved with her and assaulted her with a knife with an intention to kill her, which hit on her hand. On raising alarm, her other family members reached there and rescued her. The applicants, however, left the place of incident extending death threats to them. It is further alleged that the victim got herself medically examined at District hospital Rampur and on the basis of the said allegations, the FIR was registered against the applicants. The police after collecting cogent and relevant material and interrogating the witnesses, concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 324 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. On being summoned, the applicants filed an application for their discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the allegations against them are absolutely groundless, cooked up and concocted based on matrimonial discord, as such, no offence is made out against them and they be discharged. The court below after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material on record and considering the injuries suffered by the victim rejected the application for discharge vide its order dated 03.12.2020. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the applicants filed a revision before the court below and the revisional court, after hearing the parties, has further dismissed the said criminal revision vide its order dated 24.02.2023, affirming the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the court below. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Rampur and the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the revisional court, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, there is absolutely no cogent material to connect them with the present case and the injuries are superficial and self-inflicted. Further, the court below has illegally rejected the application of the applicants for discharge, which orders are bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have supported the impugned orders and has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, including the injury report, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants. It is a well-settled principle of law that Courts at this stage is not required to hold a mini trial. Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Court clearly provides that if upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, the Magistrate does not considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he can refuse to discharge the accused by recording reasons and proceed to frame charges against the applicants. From the material collected during the course of investigation particularly the injury report, prima facie, there is ample material to frame charges against the applicants. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. "It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." "Section 239 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the magistrate shall discharge when he considers that the charges against the accused to be groundless. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime." Having considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire material on record, particularly the injury report and the statement of the witnesses, prima facie offence, complained of, is clearly made against the applicants and the courts below after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material on record has rightly rejected the discharge application. The charges against the applicants cannot be said to be groundless at this stage, when the entire evidence is yet to come. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this court at this stage, when the entire evidence is yet to come. In view of the above, the present application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Subham Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad