Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21408 of 2019 Applicant :- Manik Chand And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Braj Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri Braj Lal for the applicant and AGA for opposite party.
This application under Section 482 Cr P C has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 54 of 2014 dated 14.7.2014 arising out of N.C.R. No. 6 of 2014, under Section 323, 504 IPC, which was subsequently registered as Case Crime No. 186 of 2014, under Section 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tharwai, Distt. Allahabad and entire proceeding pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, distt. Allahabad in S.T. No. 963 of 2017 (State Vs. Manik Chand and others).
Earlier the applicant has challenged the order dated 6.8.2018 by which the discharge application filed by the applicant was rejected by the court below, in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 26938 of 2018. This application has been decided by this Court by judgment dated 23.8.2018 and this Court found that the discharge application has been summarily rejected without disclosing adequate and sufficient reason, therefore, the order dated 6.8.2018 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the court below for passing fresh order in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid case. After remand the matter was again argued before the Additional Sessions Court No. 9, Allahabad who by the impugned order dated 19.4.2019 held that in the X-ray report of injured Amarnath (paper no. 6 ka) frontal bone was found fractured. Thus the charge under Section 308 IPC was clearly made out and there is no reason to discharge the accused. On this finding the application for discharge was again rejected. Hence this application has been filed.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the applicants.
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014 (3) SCC 1992 has held that at the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider material with a view to find out, if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purposes of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead a conviction.
Thus adjudication at this stage that all the ingredients of the particular section is satisfied is not required at the time of framing of charge. Only the court has prima facie examine with a view to presume that accused has committed offence under a particular section or not.
In the present case the allegation is that the accused has assaulted the injured through lathi danda in which the injured has received injury on his head and frontal bone was found fractured. Thus there was sufficient material before the trial court to presume that the charges under Section 308 IPC was made out against the accused. The discharge application has rightly been rejected by the court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Rahul Dwivedi/-