Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16380 of 2019 Applicant :- Khursheed And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Nawaz,Shahabuddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
The instant applicant has been filed u/s with a prayed to quash the order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Addl. Session Judge-III in S.T. no. 268 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 323, 326, 307, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhot, Distt.
Rampur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind at the time of framing charge. The discharge application has also been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.1.2019, without perusing the evidence and material available on record. There is no evidence or material against the accused applicants. Applicants are entitled to be discharged. Hence the impugned order dated 29.1.2019 as well as charge framed vide order dated 14.3.2019 be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that at this stage, the truthfulness or falsehood of the case cannot be adjudged.
From perusal of order dated 29.1.2019 it transpires that learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the ground, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa(1996) Cri. Law Journal- 2448 (S.C.) & Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 (S.C.) 1963 and also law laid down by this Court in Hemant Kumar Taneja Vs. State of U.P., 2004 Cr.L.J. 3558 (Allahabad).
It is settled principle of law that at this stage meticulous examination of facts and evidence placed by the prosecution is not required, only prima facie case is needed. The merit/demerit or truthfulness/falsehood of the evidence and material placed by the prosecution can also not be adjudged at the stage of considering the application for discharge filed by accused.
In view of the above, I am of the view that order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.1.2019 whereby the discharge application filed by applicants has been rejected as well as charge framed vide order dated 14.3.2019 requires no interference.
The application is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Vandana