Bhagwan Swaroop @ Lale v. Jalaj Kumar Tripathi

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the application moved by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. whereby he has prayed to the court to pass discharge order in favour of the appellant in the aforesaid matter. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the present prosecution of the applicant at the hands of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the applicant. It is further contended that no offence against the applicant is made out from the allegations set out in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2.

He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge is wholly illegal, capricious and against weight of evidence on record. He has further submitted that it 2 CRLA No. 8132 of 2024 transpires that order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned AGA has contended that the discharge application moved by the appellant has been rejected and the same does not suffer from any error of law and moreover in case the applicant has any grievance, he will have various opportunities for redressal of his grievance during course of trial.

Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court and discharge the accused appellants but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charge.. The impugned orders passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant no interference by this Court.

Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of appellant. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. September 16, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad