High Court · 2025

3. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajeev Sharma, leaned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. The discharge application dated 02.04.2025 moved by the accused / revisionist was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Agra vide order 29.04.2025 and charges were framed against the present revisionist under Sections 147, 148, 313/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 506 IPC and against other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 506 IPC, which causes grievance to the present revisionist, hence this revision.

5. Admit.

6. 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 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.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5569 and particularly referred paragraph-8 of the said decision dated 28.8.2024, which is extracted hereinbelow. "8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case."

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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. 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.

9. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) K. Ravi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 715 (ii) Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1979 SC 94 (iii) Bharat Parikh Vs. C.B.I. and Another, AIR 2008 SCW 4842

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. So far as the present matter is concerned, the factual matrix is disclosed in the F.I.R. wherein it was mentioned that an altercation took place between the informant side and the accused persons on account of plucking of mangoes from the trees situate on the field of informant side and when they objected to it, a free fight was held at that place. A named F.I.R. was lodged against the present revisionist and his 7 known and 15-20 unknown associates. The F.I.R. also alleges that the accused persons attacked the informant side with lathi, danda and saria with intention to kill wherein the informant and his family members sustained serious injuries. It was also alleged by the informant that in the said incident the pregnancy of the injured victim / wife of the informant was terminated and this fact found support from the statement of the lady doctor. After lodging of the F.I.R. investigation started and lastly charge-sheet was filed against the present revisionist alongwith five other co-accused persons. It is relevant that the revisionist in the present case was charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 313, 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC whereas no charge-sheet was filed against the other co-accused persons under section 313 IPC and rest of the sections remained to be same. The prosecution case was also corroborated by medical evidence.

15. The Investigating Officer in the instant case recorded the statement of injured witnesses and other relevant witnesses and obtained the medical reports of the injured victim Tanu. All the injured persons were examined without any delay on the same day at C.H.C., Etmadpur, Agra. Dr. Charu, Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Agra has corroborated the prosecution version in her statement given to the Investigating Officer and has made a specific statement that on account of injuries sustained by injured Tanu, her pregnancy was terminated. The injured Tanu and other injured persons as well as the witnesses of fact have also corroborated the prosecution version and disclosed the guilt of the accused persons. Against the present revisionist Omveer Singh, the charge-sheet was particularly filed under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. No cogent reason has been claimed by the revisionist in the instant revision as to how and why he was falsely implicated in this case. He has been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient and ample evidence against him and specific role of the present revisionist particularly has been assigned by the witnesses of the incident. Prima facie it appears that no illegality has been caused by the learned trial court in rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist.

17. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist i.e. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel (supra) is concerned, from the perusal of the same, particularly paragraph-8 thereof, I do not find any cogent reason or ground to pass any verdict in favour of the revisionist and the said decision does not help the revisionist in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

18. 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 :- 19.8.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajeev Sharma, leaned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. The discharge application dated 02.04.2025 moved by the accused / revisionist was rejected by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Agra vide order 29.04.2025 and charges were framed against the present revisionist under Sections 147, 148, 313/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 506 IPC and against other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 506 IPC, which causes grievance to the present revisionist, hence this revision.

5. Admit.

6. 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 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.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5569 and particularly referred paragraph-8 of the said decision dated 28.8.2024, which is extracted hereinbelow. "8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case."

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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. 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.

9. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) K. Ravi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 715 (ii) Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1979 SC 94 (iii) Bharat Parikh Vs. C.B.I. and Another, AIR 2008 SCW 4842

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. So far as the present matter is concerned, the factual matrix is disclosed in the F.I.R. wherein it was mentioned that an altercation took place between the informant side and the accused persons on account of plucking of mangoes from the trees situate on the field of informant side and when they objected to it, a free fight was held at that place. A named F.I.R. was lodged against the present revisionist and his 7 known and 15-20 unknown associates. The F.I.R. also alleges that the accused persons attacked the informant side with lathi, danda and saria with intention to kill wherein the informant and his family members sustained serious injuries. It was also alleged by the informant that in the said incident the pregnancy of the injured victim / wife of the informant was terminated and this fact found support from the statement of the lady doctor. After lodging of the F.I.R. investigation started and lastly charge-sheet was filed against the present revisionist alongwith five other co-accused persons. It is relevant that the revisionist in the present case was charge-sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 313, 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC whereas no charge-sheet was filed against the other co-accused persons under section 313 IPC and rest of the sections remained to be same. The prosecution case was also corroborated by medical evidence.

15. The Investigating Officer in the instant case recorded the statement of injured witnesses and other relevant witnesses and obtained the medical reports of the injured victim Tanu. All the injured persons were examined without any delay on the same day at C.H.C., Etmadpur, Agra. Dr. Charu, Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Agra has corroborated the prosecution version in her statement given to the Investigating Officer and has made a specific statement that on account of injuries sustained by injured Tanu, her pregnancy was terminated. The injured Tanu and other injured persons as well as the witnesses of fact have also corroborated the prosecution version and disclosed the guilt of the accused persons. Against the present revisionist Omveer Singh, the charge-sheet was particularly filed under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. No cogent reason has been claimed by the revisionist in the instant revision as to how and why he was falsely implicated in this case. He has been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient and ample evidence against him and specific role of the present revisionist particularly has been assigned by the witnesses of the incident. Prima facie it appears that no illegality has been caused by the learned trial court in rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist.

17. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist i.e. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel (supra) is concerned, from the perusal of the same, particularly paragraph-8 thereof, I do not find any cogent reason or ground to pass any verdict in favour of the revisionist and the said decision does not help the revisionist in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

18. 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 :- 19.8.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad