Court No. - 31
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36631 of 2018
Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Vidrohi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.
The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.8.2018, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, has dismissed the discharge application filed by the applicant in Criminal Case No.4744 of 2016, (State Versus Ramesh Chandra Vidrohi) arising out of Case Crime No.978 of 2015, under Sections 147, 323, 332, 353, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., P.S.Quarsi, District-
Aligarh.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The impugned order shows that the court below has rejected the application for discharge on the basis that prima facie sufficient evidence is available on record to frame charge.
As per settled legal position, at the stage of framing a charge even a strong suspicion in the mind of the court concerned regarding culpability of accused is sufficient to frame a charge and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence, as available on record at the initial stage of framing charges, is to be considered by the court concerned.
In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.
In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.
In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
In Omwati v. State; AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed the clear view that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.
In view of the well settled legal position as discussed above, there is no illegality in the impugned order whereby the discharge application has been dismissed.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the aforesaid impugned order is refused.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the applicant is ready to surrender before the court and to move bail application and the court below be directed to consider his bail application expeditiously in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Learned A.G.A. has no objection against the aforesaid prayer.
As the law laid down in both the aforesaid cases, should be complied with in letter and spirit, by all courts, it is expected from the trial court that in case the applicant surrenders before it within six weeks from today and applies for bail it will decide his bail application in wake of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of six weeks from today, which shall not be extended any further, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above mentioned case.
With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date:-27.10.2018-SB