Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7778 of 2021 Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Bhati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 25.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 4240 of 2016 (State Vs. Yogendra and others), under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case and now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Record shows that in respect of various incidents which are alleged to have occurred from 22.02.2016 to 16.05.2016, a delayed F.I.R. dated 07.07.2016 was lodged by first informant opposite party 2 Balvir Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 107 of 2016, under Sections 498- A, 354-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Satendra Kumar Bhati, Karmveer Bhati (applicants herein), Yogendra Kumar and Smt. Mukesh have been nominated as named accused.
According to allegations made in the F.I.R., it is alleged that marriage of Shital, daughter of first informant/opposite party 2 was solemnized with Satendra Kumar Bhati i.e. applicant 1 on 22.2.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. However, subsequently, demand of additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs was made. First informant for the well being of his daughter made payment of Rs. 10 lacs by way of R.T.G.S. on 03.03.2016. First informant is further alleged to have made payment of Rs. 5 lac on two occasions in cash. However, irrespective of above, physical and mental cruelty were committed by named accused upon daughter of first informant. It is also alleged that modesty of daughter of first informant was attempted to be dislodged by her father-in-law namely Karmveer Bhati. The F.I.R. further records that an attempt was made to kill daughter of first informant/opposite party 2.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. Statements of first informant, the victim and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Witnesses so examined supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is adverse to applicants, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 08.10.2016, whereby and whereunder named accused have been charge-sheeted. Upon submission of above noted charge-sheet, concerned Court took cognizance upon same, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 08.11.2016 passed on the charge sheet. Resultantly, Case No. 4240 of 2016 (State Vs. Yogendra and others), came to be registered.
Thus, feeling aggrieved by above, applicants approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No. 386 of 2017 (Karam Veer Singh and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), which came to be disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 6.3.2019. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-
"Heard Sri N. D. Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1 and Sri Balveer Singh (complainant) in person.
On 20.02.2019 following order was passed by this Court:-
"Heard Sri Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Balbir Singh (complainant) in person.
By order dated 06.01.2017 of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation. As per report dated 19.05.2017 of the Mediation Centre, both the parties appeared before Mediation Centre on 07.04.2017, 05.05.2017 and 19.05.2017 but mediation failed between the parties concerned. It is submitted by the opposite party no.3 (father of the victim Smt. Shital) that during the course of Mediation, the accused side were agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs to the victim and endorsement in this regard is very much available in the record of mediation centre, while the contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the mediation has failed on account of excessive demand of Rs. 75 lakhs from the side of the opposite party no.3.
Today on behalf of applicants, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are ready to settle the issue by praying an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs to the opposite party no.3/ victim. Though the opposite party no.3 is also ready to make settlement on the aforesaid proposal offered by the applicants but submitted that if settlement amount is enhanced at least to the extent of Rs. 40 laksh, he will be satisfied.
In view of above, this Court feels that under the circumstances at least one more opportunity should be granted to the parties concerned to settle their dispute and to think over the matter with their own sweet will, so that acrimonious relation and interminably litigation between the parties concerned may come to an end.
Accordingly, list this case on 06.03.2019 in top ten cases of the list. On that day, the learned counsel for the applicants shall make a positive statement/undertaking regarding settlement after receiving the instructions from the applicants, so that further necessary order may be passed in terms of undertaking/settlement made between the parties concerned."
Today pursuant to order dated 20.02.2019, learned counsel for the applicants after taking instructions from the applicants submitted that they are not ready to settle the dispute by way of mediation. The applicants are also not ready to comply the undertaking given by their counsel before this Court on 20.02.2019.
In view of the above, I have proceeded to hear the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on merit.
After advancing some arguments at length, learned counsel for the applicants gave up his challenge to the impugned charge sheet No. 106 of 2016 dated 08.10.2016 and cognizance order dated 08.11.2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Sector-39, District-Gautam Budh Nagar and requested to grant some protection so that applicants may surrender before the Court below and move their bail application.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and last request made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the Court concerned within 30 days and apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon' ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of."
After above order was passed by this Court, applicants moved an application before Court below seeking their discharge in above mentioned case. However, copy of discharge application was filed by applicants before Court below, has not been brought on record. Court below upon evaluation of material on record came to the conclusion that no ground exists to discharge accused i.e. applicants. Accordingly, by order dated 28.05.2021 Court below rejected the discharge application.
Thus feeling aggrieved by order dated 28.05.2021 as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case, applicants have now again approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, same is liable to be quashed by this Court. It is then submitted that dispute between parties is primarily a matrimonial dispute, which has been dragged into criminal litigation. Material on record does not support the prosecution of applicants. It is thus sought to be urged that on the material available on record, no offence under any of the charging Sections can be said to have been committed by applicants. In short the submission is that there is no legal evidence on record to support the prosecution of applicants. He, thereafter, submits that Court below has erred in law and fact in rejecting the discharge application filed by applicants. Consequently, order impugned in present application is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that present application filed by applicants is second application in so far as it seeks challenge to entire proceedings of above mentioned case pending before Court below. Applicants had admittedly approached this Court earlier by means of Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. No. 396 of 2017, wherein the charge sheet and Cognizance Order were challenged. Aforesaid application was disposed of finally, vide order dated 06.03.2019. As such present application in respect of aforesaid prayer is not maintainable. Learned A.G.A. next contends that order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal. Court below has not committed any error on law or fact in passing impugned order, while, deciding an application for discharge filed in terms of Section 239 Cr. P. C. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr.
P. C., the Court has to examine as to whether the charge alleged against the applicants is groundless or not. Since the discharge application filed by applicants before Court below has not been brought on record, this Court is handicapped in considering the present application inasmuch as the ground on which discharge was claimed by applicants before Court below cannot be gathered. Learned A.G.A. then submits that irrespective of above, Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr. P. C. are not required to hold a mini trial. While deciding discharge application, Court has to consider that a prima facie case exists. Courts are not required to record a finding that on evidence available on record, conviction is possible. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned A.G.A. that present Criminal Misc. Application is not liable to be entertained.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record the Court finds that present application is the second application in so far as it seeks to challenge the entire proceedings of Case No. 4240 of 2016 (State Vs. Yogendra and others), pending before Court below. Since present application is the second application regarding aforesaid relief and there is no change in the circumstances, therefore, aforesaid prayer made by applicants cannot be granted. Coming to the veracity of the order impugned in present application, the Court finds that order impugned in present application is not very happily worded, but the genesis of the same is in accordance with law. In the absence of the discharge application filed by applicants before Court below, this Court is handicapped in considering the grounds urged by applicants before Court below for seeking their discharge. Irrespective of above, Court finds that Court below has rejected the discharge application by recording a prima facie finding that on the material available on record, the applicants can be tried for the offences alleged. As such, a triable issue was before Court below. Consequently, it cannot be said that charge alleged against applicants is groundless. Parameters with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr. P. C., which is parameteria now stands crystalized by a Full Bench judgement of Apex Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and another, 2019 SCC OnLine 1053, wherein following have been observed in paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31:-
"28. In the case of N. Suresh Rajan (Supra) this Court had an occasion to consider in detail the scope of the proceedings at the stage of framing of the charge under Section 227/228 CrPC. After considering earlier decisions of this Court on the point thereafter in paragraph 29 to 31 this Court has observed and held as under:
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.
30. Reference in this connection can be made to a recent decision of this Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P. [(2013) 11 SCC 476 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 21 : AIR 2013 SC 52] , in which, after analysing various decisions on the point, this Court endorsed the following view taken in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2008) 2 SCC 561 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507] : (Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat case [(2013) 11 SCC 476 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 21 : AIR 2013 SC 52] , SCC p. 482, para 15) "15. '11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.' (Onkar Nath case [(2008) 2 SCC 561 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 507] , SCC p. 565, para 11)" (emphasis in original)
31. Now reverting to the decisions of this Court in Sajjan Kumar [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] and Dilawar Balu Kurane [Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 310] , relied on by the respondents, we are of the opinion that they do not advance their case. The aforesaid decisions consider the provision of Section 227 of the Code and make it clear that at the stage of discharge the court cannot make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. It is worth mentioning that the Code contemplates discharge of the accused by the Court of Session under Section 227 in a case triable by it; cases instituted upon a police report are covered by Section 239 and cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are dealt with in Section 245. From a reading of the aforesaid sections it is evident that they contain somewhat different provisions with regard to discharge of an accused:
31.1. Under Section 227 of the Code, the trial court is required to discharge the accused if it "considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". However, discharge under Section 239 can be ordered when "the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless". The power to discharge is exercisable under Section 245(1) when, "the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction".
31.2. Section 227 and 239 provide for discharge before the recording of evidence on the basis of the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. However, the stage of discharge under Section 245, on the other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred in Section 244 has been taken.
31.3. Thus, there is difference in the language employed in these provisions. But, in our opinion, notwithstanding these differences, and whichever provision may be applicable, the court is required at this stage to see that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. Reference in this connection can be made to a judgment of this Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1986) 2 SCC 716 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 256] . The same reads as follows: (SCC pp. 755 56, para 43) "43. … Notwithstanding this difference in the position there is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the Magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under Section 245(1) is a preliminary one and the test of ' prima facie' case has to be applied. In spite of the difference in the language of the three sections, the legal position is that if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed."
29. In the subsequent decision in the case of S. Selvi (Supra) this Court has summarised the principles while framing of the charge at the stage of Section 227/228 of the CrPC. This Court has observed and held in paragraph 6 and 7 as under:
"6. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of judgments including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] , Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra [Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 310] , Sajjan Kumar v. CBI[Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] , State v. A. Arun Kumar [State v. A. Arun Kumar, (2015) 2 SCC 417 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 96 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 505] , Sonu Gupta v.
Deepak Gupta [Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265] , State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2003) 2 SCC 711 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 688] , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47] and Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038] that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial.
7. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371] , this Court on consideration of the various decisions about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, laid down the following principles: (SCC pp. 376 77, para 21) "(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed 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.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) 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 disclose 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.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.""
30. In the case of Mauvin Godinho (Supra) this Court had an occasion to consider how to determine prima facie case while framing the charge under Section 227/228 of the CrPC. In the same decision this Court observed and held that while considering the prima facie case at the stage of framing of the charge under Section 227 of the CrPC there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
31. At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad (Supra) is also required to be referred to. In that aforesaid decision this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of enquiry at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227/228 of the CrPC. In paragraphs 11 to 14 observations of this Court in the aforesaid decision are as under :
"11. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having bearing on the contentions urged for the parties, provides:
"227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
12. Section 228 requires the Judge to frame charge if he considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The interaction of these two sections has already been the subject matter of consideration by this Court. In State of Biharv. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : (1978) 1 SCR 257] , Untwalia, J., while explaining the scope of the said sections observed: [SCR p. 259 : SCC pp. 4142 : SCC (Cri) pp. 53536, para 4] Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously Judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
13. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 : (1979) 2 SCR 229] , Fazal Ali, J., summarised some of the principles: [SCR pp. 23435 : SCC p. 9 : SCC (Cri) pp. 61314, para 10] "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused had been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
14. These two decisions do not lay down different principles. Prafulla Kumar case [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 : (1979) 2 SCR 229] has only reiterated what has been stated in Ramesh Singh case [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 : (1978) 1 SCR 257] . In fact, Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". The "ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into.""
When the case in hand is examined in the light of law as reiterated by Supreme Court in above noted judgement, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned.
For the facts and reasons noted above, no good ground exists to entertain present application.
The application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 HSM