Rule.
Mr.Raval, learned APP appears and waives service of rule for respondent - State.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the sides, this matter is taken up for final disposal today.
The instant application is filed by the petitioner, who happens to be original accused in Criminal Case No.738 of 2009, praying to quash and set-aside the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.336 of 2010, whereby while dismissing said revision application, the Court confirmed and maintained the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad in the aforementioned criminal case.
The petitioner accused moved an application, claiming her discharge from the aforementioned criminal case and the trial Court vide order dated 18.6.2010 dismissed said application, only by observing that considering the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the petitioner - accused, that application was required to be dismissed. The petitioner - accused carried the matter before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and the City Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 3.12.2010, dismissed her revision application.
Mr.RJ Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner, drawing my attention to the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by the trial Court, submitted that no reason worth the name is assigned by the trial Court, as to why the application for discharge of the petitioner was required to be dismissed. While dismissing said application, the trial Court did not even refer in the application, any submission made on behalf of the petitioner - accused nor appears to have perused the relevant papers filed along with the chargesheet. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was mere employee in the establishment of main accused, namely, Ajaysinh Chaudhary. Even in the FIR, the allegations are levelled against the said main accused. The said main accused is still not arrested and as per the chargesheet papers and more particularly, considering column No.2 in the chargesheet, main accused Ajaysinh Chaudhary is shown as absconding accused. Mr.Goswami, learned advocate asserted that before the revisional Court, the main contention of the petitioner herein was to the effect that since the order passed by the trial Court is non-speaking order, the matter was required to be remanded, but instead of that, the revisional Court dismissed the said revision application, observing that, while framing charge, no reasons are required to be assigned by the trial Court. Mr.Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any written application filed by the accused, claiming discharge, and in that eventuality, if the trial Court frames charge, it may not be necessary for the trial Court to assign reasons for framing charge, but once there is written application filed by the accused, already on record, claiming discharge, before the charge is framed, the trial Court should decide said application atleast by speaking order. It is, therefore, submitted that without going into the merits of the case, so far as this application is concerned, the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application of the petitioner for discharge in accordance with law.
Heard Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondent - State.
At the outset, considering the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by the trial Court, it transpires that by a cryptic order, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge appears to have been dismissed. Nothing transpires that any submission made on behalf of the petitioner was dealt with by the trial Court. The revisional Court, in turn, while dismissing the revision application of the petitioner, observed that while framing charge, Magistrate was not required to assign reasons. It is pertinent to note that here is not a case wherein there was no application filed by the accused, claiming discharge and the trial Court was required to frame charge. In the instant case, admittedly, there was discharge application in writing filed by the petitioner and the same came to be dismissed by the trial Court without assigning any reasons.
In above view of the matter, this application deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be remanded to the concerned trial Court to decide afresh the application filed by the petitioner for discharge, by setting-aside the impugned orders passed by the Subordinate Courts.
It is hereby made clear that in the instant order, no merits are examined.
For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. The order dated 3.12.2010 passed by learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.336 of 2010 and the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad, are quashed and set-aside. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad is directed to decide afresh the application filed by the petitioner - original accused in Criminal Case No.738 of 2009 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 18.6.2010 or the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.336 of 2010.
Rule is made absolute.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top