Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44358 of 2019 Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Singh,Nirmla Kumari,Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Devendra against State of U.P. and Smt. Ram Pyrari, with prayer to quash the order dated 11.9.2019 passed by A.C.J.M., Firozabad, in Complaint Case No. 1831 of 2016, Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Rajveer and others, whereby application for discharge filed u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that no offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. was made out from the accusation made in the complaint, even then the impugned summoning order was passed. Hence a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this court, wherein a direction was made to move an application for discharge. In compliance of the aforesaid order, an application for discharge was moved before the trial court. But the same was got rejected. It was misuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument.
From the very perusal of the order passed in Application u/s 482 No. 39455 of 2018, Devendra Vs. State of U.P. and another, it is apparent that the impugned summoning order was challenged in above proceeding, but the same was not accepted. Rather court gave a finding that there was no ground justifying quashing of complaint or impugned proceeding. Hence it was refused. Again reiteration of the same fact before this court is not permissible. Regarding discharge application, it is apparent that this court has ordered that summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame charge comes, if for reasons to be recorded, it considers the charge to be groundless and on the request of applicant, the permission to appear before the concerned lower court and to move discharge application was granted, i.e. it was never directed that the Magistrate has to allow discharge application in compliance of the order. Rather the Magistrate was to exercise its discretion and to see as to whether there is any ground for framing charge and this is possible only after recording of evidence u/s 244 Cr.P.C. because the evidence placed before the Magistrate was considered then after summoning order was passed and in between there was no change at all for making discharge. Hence the Magistrate dismissed the application for discharge for want of evidence u/s 244 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate was well within the jurisdiction to pass order in accordance with law. Hence this application merits its dismissal.
Dismissed as such.
However, the applicant is with liberty to move a discharge application after recording of evidence u/s 244 Cr.P.C. before framing charge and the Magistrate may pass order before framing charge.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Pcl