Remanded

Mayank v. State of U.P. and Ahother

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2018A482/18292/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting the applicant's discharge application in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court observed that the lower court failed to evaluate specific defense material and remitted the matter for a fresh discharge application within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.04.2018 rejecting the discharge application is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Special Judge to decide the discharge application afresh within three months.

Mayank Vs State of U.P. and Ahother — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18292 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mayank Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ahother Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 30.03.2017, order of cognizance & summoning order dated 20.05.2017 and order dated 18.04.2018 rejecting the discharge application moved by the applicant passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi in Special Trial No. 148 of 2017 (State Vs. Mayank) arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) D of the S.C. / S.T. Act, Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi as well as the entire proceeding of Special Trial No. 148 of 2017 pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there exists material on the prosecution file in the shape of call detail that would establish that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence and that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Thus he is entitled to discharge.

¶8

It is then submitted that the learned court below has not considered any of the arguments advanced by the applicant and has simply rejected the discharge application by observing that prima facie case is made out. However, no evaluation has been made of the material filed on the prosecution file especially that which clearly goes to show that the applicant was not involved in the offence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that while deciding the discharge application, learned court below does not have to look at the allegations on the basis of one or two material that may exist on the prosecution file, but had to make an evaluation whether a stray suspicion exists against the accused in light of the entire material that was available.

¶10

It is thus submitted that no such exercise has been done by learned Court below and no conclusion has been reached that there exists a strong suspicion of commission of offence by the

¶11

applicant.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the present application. He submits that at this stage learned Court below was only to examine whether a prima facie case exists or not.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 , it is clear that the learned Court below was obliged to sift through and weigh all the material that existed on the prosecution file for purpose of forming a fair opinion whether on the basis of such material and evidence, taken in it's entirety, a grave suspicion of offence having been committed by the applicant arises.

¶14

The fact that the learned Court below has not made any observation on the material relied upon by the applicant, while rejecting the discharge application, does prima-facie indicate that such material has not been weighed or sifted through, keeping in mind offence as alleged.

¶15

Though it is not the purport of this order to compel the learned Court below to examine any particular material, in any particular light with a particular object but, at the same time when the accused prays for discharge on the basis of material that exists on the prosecution file, it would be in the fairness of the procedure for the learned Court below to make a dispassionate enquiry and make appropriate observations with regard to the material on the basis of which the applicant claims there exists no grave suspicion or that he is entitled to discharge.

¶16

Thus, at present it cannot be said with certainty that the learned Court below has decided the discharge application after examining the entire material that was available.

¶17

Consequently, the order dated 18.04.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Court below to decide the discharge application afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

The present application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.6.2018 NS

Mayank v. State of U.P. and Ahother

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank v. State of U.P. and Ahother

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh @ Mahesh Sharma @ Mahesh Babu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Koshal Kisore Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nirbhay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Usha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhothai and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others