Dismissed

Yaseen and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2018CRLP/7822/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court examined a criminal writ petition challenging the framing of charges in a case involving agricultural land dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that revisional powers cannot be used to quash charges merely on merits. Finding no jurisdictional error, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition was dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Yaseen and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7822 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Yaseen & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.B. Paul Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,G.M. Tripathi,M.A. Zaidi

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

1- Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners. None is present on behalf of respondent even in the revised list/call and the writ petition is being decided on merit.

¶6

2- This criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.6.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in complainant case no.2202 of 2003 whereby the petitioners were summoned under Sections 147, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Massoorie, District Ghaziabad. Against which the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2002 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2003. Hence this writ petition.

¶7

3- According to prosecution case, due to dispute of agricultural land on 11.5.2000 after entering into the tubewell, they destroyed the property of the complainant and statements of P.W.1-Sheoraj and P.W.2- Avinash were recorded.

¶8

4- After perusal of the evidence and the material available on record and statements under Sections 200 and 203 Cr.P.C., the impugned order was passed and the petitioners were summoned under Sections 147, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶9

5- It is pertinent to mention Section 239 Cr.P.C. and Section 240 Cr.P.C. which are as follows:-

¶10

"Section 239 Cr.P.C. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

¶11

Section 240 Cr.P.C. (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

¶12

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."

¶13

6- According to Section 239 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that accused is liable to be discharged from the charge levelled against him, then he is duty bound to record reasons for discharging the accused. According to Section 240 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is competent to try and is of the opinion that accused could be punished by him, he shall frame charge against the accused.

¶14

7- In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 , where a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, after noting three pairs of sections viz. (i) Sections 227 and 228 insofar as sessions trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and (iii) Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases, which dealt with the question of framing of charge or discharge, stated thus:

¶15

"if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."

¶16

8- It has been held by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Bhiku Ram vs. Delhi Municipality, 1977 CRLJ, 1955 that framing of charge cannot be said to be finally determining the matter in issue, setting at rest the controversy between the parties. In framing a charge Magistrate only specifies the accusation against an accused person and communicates the same to him. Therefore they are interlocutory being a procedural step and does not determine the principal matter in dispute. Thus, in the present case, the Magistrate has committed no error in framing charges.

¶17

9- In that case there had been a written compromise, hence criminal proceedings could have been quashed, but in the instant case neither written compromise was filed before the trial Court nor accepted or verified by it. Hence, revisionists are not entitled to be discharged from the charges levelled against them.

¶18

10- In the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under

¶19

the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.

¶20

11- In the case of Nemichand Jain vs. Roshanlal and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 461 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the Stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence and then concluded that there were no materials to frame charges under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case on the basis of the charges framed by Sessions Court under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

¶21

12- It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner will have opportunity to produce his evidence before the Court below at the defence stage.

¶22

13- A perusal of record shows that charges against the petitioner has already been framed and statement of the informant has also been recorded before the trial Court. On this ground also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The present petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed . Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶23

14- The copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.9.2018 OP

Yaseen and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaseen and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Kalla Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Taufiq Alias Rafi Alam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others