SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to vs Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. Notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but none is present on his behalf.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Only general allegations have been levelled against the appellants. As per allegation, the appellants have entered into the pandal and have committed maarpeet with lathi and danda. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the court below has taken cognizance. Being aggrieved with cognizance order, the appellants have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.27470 of 2024 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 disposed of the matter with the direction to the appellants to move discharge application before the court below, thereafter, the appellants have moved discharge application, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025. Further submission is that the appellants never hurled abuses to insult the first informant by caste related remarks. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. On these grounds a prayer has been made to set aside the order impugned and to discharge the present appellants from the aforesaid charges.

5. 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.

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 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.

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. In the present case, on 20.10.2023 at about 08.00 pm the appellants armed with lathi danda committed maarpeet with the first informant and also appellants have abused to the first informant. When the informant was interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has specifically stated that accused appellants came to her house and while abusing committed maarpeet. Appellants have also pulled her cloth during maarpeet. It is admitted fact that the appellants are not member of SC/ST community and accused appellants were very well knowing that the informant is a member of SC/ST community.

12. 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.

14. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15 However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is expected to conclude and decide the trial of Session Case No.673 of 2024 (State vs. Shakil and others) arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the side expeditiously fixing short dates. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Ajeet AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. Notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but none is present on his behalf.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Only general allegations have been levelled against the appellants. As per allegation, the appellants have entered into the pandal and have committed maarpeet with lathi and danda. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the court below has taken cognizance. Being aggrieved with cognizance order, the appellants have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.27470 of 2024 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 disposed of the matter with the direction to the appellants to move discharge application before the court below, thereafter, the appellants have moved discharge application, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025. Further submission is that the appellants never hurled abuses to insult the first informant by caste related remarks. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. On these grounds a prayer has been made to set aside the order impugned and to discharge the present appellants from the aforesaid charges.

5. 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.

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 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.

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. In the present case, on 20.10.2023 at about 08.00 pm the appellants armed with lathi danda committed maarpeet with the first informant and also appellants have abused to the first informant. When the informant was interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has specifically stated that accused appellants came to her house and while abusing committed maarpeet. Appellants have also pulled her cloth during maarpeet. It is admitted fact that the appellants are not member of SC/ST community and accused appellants were very well knowing that the informant is a member of SC/ST community.

12. 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.

14. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15 However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is expected to conclude and decide the trial of Session Case No.673 of 2024 (State vs. Shakil and others) arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the side expeditiously fixing short dates. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Ajeet AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad