High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri D.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neelkant Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-CAW), Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.56 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0481 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. Facts in brief are that an FIR was registered on 09.10.2024 through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant called the daughter of the informant to Jhansi with the assurance to provide job. When she reached Jhansi, the applicant forced her to make physical relation. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was submitted and the Court has taken cognizance against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2025.The said order has been assailed by means of this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of honey trap because the prosecutrix herself took the room in the Hotel along with the applicant, which has come in the statements of the Hotel Manager. He further submits that the discharge application was rejected by the Court concerned without appreciation of the facts. There was sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix herself had gone to the Hotel with consent and also refused to undergo medical examination.

5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the instant application is not maintainable as against the impugned order criminal revision lies before the Court of competent jurisdiction. They further submits that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborates the CDR. They submits that during investigation sufficient material with regard to involvement of the applicant in the incident was found, on the basis of which the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet and the Court below has summoned the applicant. They also submits that as far as the impugned order passed on the discharge application is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Court has to look into and consider the material placed before the Court by the Investigating Agency while framing of charge or considering the accused for discharge. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that for framing of charge and discharge it is only the material produced by the prosecution alone, which is to be considered for framing of charge or discharge.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC has held as follows:- "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This how ever does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

8. This ratio was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2022 (9) SCC 577 in which the ratio laid down in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) was upheld.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, has observed that the law on the issue of discharge is well settled that, at the time of charge the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no offence is made out in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution then only the accused can be discharged.

10. In the instant case, the trial court while rejecting the discharge application has come to a finding that the material produced by the prosecution is enough and prima facie case is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged. In the instant matter, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicant.

11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, I see no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri D.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neelkant Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-CAW), Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.56 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0481 of 2024, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. Facts in brief are that an FIR was registered on 09.10.2024 through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant called the daughter of the informant to Jhansi with the assurance to provide job. When she reached Jhansi, the applicant forced her to make physical relation. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was submitted and the Court has taken cognizance against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2025.The said order has been assailed by means of this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of honey trap because the prosecutrix herself took the room in the Hotel along with the applicant, which has come in the statements of the Hotel Manager. He further submits that the discharge application was rejected by the Court concerned without appreciation of the facts. There was sufficient evidence on record that the prosecutrix herself had gone to the Hotel with consent and also refused to undergo medical examination.

5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the instant application is not maintainable as against the impugned order criminal revision lies before the Court of competent jurisdiction. They further submits that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborates the CDR. They submits that during investigation sufficient material with regard to involvement of the applicant in the incident was found, on the basis of which the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet and the Court below has summoned the applicant. They also submits that as far as the impugned order passed on the discharge application is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Court has to look into and consider the material placed before the Court by the Investigating Agency while framing of charge or considering the accused for discharge. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that for framing of charge and discharge it is only the material produced by the prosecution alone, which is to be considered for framing of charge or discharge.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC has held as follows:- "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This how ever does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

8. This ratio was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2022 (9) SCC 577 in which the ratio laid down in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) was upheld.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, has observed that the law on the issue of discharge is well settled that, at the time of charge the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no offence is made out in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution then only the accused can be discharged.

10. In the instant case, the trial court while rejecting the discharge application has come to a finding that the material produced by the prosecution is enough and prima facie case is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged. In the instant matter, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicant.

11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, I see no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad