Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28327 of 2019 Applicant :- Suresh Singh And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashment of the order dated 13.5.2019 in Case No. 72 of 2017 (Smt. Shashi Vs. Suresh Singh and others) arising out of Complaint Case No. 351 of 2013, under Sections 147, 323, 354, 452, 504 of IPC, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate- Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that impugned order has been passed ignoring relevant facts and material. The alleged complaint is a counterblast as earlier applicants have lodged an FIR against the respondent no. 2 and others. It was submitted that application for discharge filed by the the applicants has been rejected by the learned lower court vide impugned order dated 13.5.2019 in an illegal manner.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Perusal of the record shows that in the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, applicants were summoned for the offences under Section 147, 323, 354, 452, 504 of IPC. The applicants have preferred application 18Aa for discharge, which was rejected by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 13.5.2019. There are allegations in the complaint that the applicants have tresspassed into the house of complainant, abused her and also threatened to kill her husband. As per the complainant, they have also given beatings to her and with intention to outrage her modesty, her blouse was torn. It was also alleged that they have snatched a golden chain from her neck.
It is well settled that at the stage of charge the court can 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. 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. It is settled legal position that at the stage of charge the court is not required to consider pros and cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out. Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge can be framed. The court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any. 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, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless. In the instant matter in my opinion, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken into account all the relevant material and passed the impugned order. Perusal of impugned order shows that learned lower court has considered entire facts in detail and has passed a reasoned order on the application of discharge, filed by the applicants. Considering the material on record, it can not said that impugned order suffers from any such vice, which calls for exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.PC.
In view of the above position of law and considering the facts of the matter it cannot be said that impugned order suffers from any such illegality or irregularity, so as to warrant any interference in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing impugned order is hereby refused.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Mohit