In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash the trial court's order rejecting a discharge application. The Court held that grounds for discharge require leading of evidence during trial and found no merit in the applicants' claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27229 of 2019
Applicant :- Dr. Ravi Goyal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 04.06.2019 along with the orders dated 23.05.2018 and 26.07.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 459 of 2017 and 480 of 2017 (Dr. Beni Madhav Goyal vs State of U.P.) and order dated 20.07.2017 passed in compliant case no. 4423 of 2014( Ajay Pal Singh vs. Dr. Ravi Goyal and others) under Section 304A, 120B IPC, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that initially applicants have approached before this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. through Criminal Misc. No. 7286 of 2007 and this Court relying on the decision recorded in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1369 Jacob Mathew vs.State of Punjab and another , stayed the proceedings of compliant case. Since applicants did not appear on the date fixed in the matter, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for nonprosecution. Applicants appeared before the court concerned and have obtained bail and thereafter moved discharge application which was illegally rejected by the concerned Magistrate. A criminal revision was also filed which was also decided without considering the issue raised by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that since revisional court has set aside the order passed by the concerned Magistrate on the discharge application, applicant moved fresh application before the concerned Magistrate taking recourse to the provisions of Section 259 Cr.P.C. which was also dismissed without considering the legal position. It is further argued that if procedure for summon trial case has to be followed in the matter then also applicants can claim their discharge under Section 25 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that applicants had placed reliance on the decision of Jacob Mathew (supra) case but the trial court ignoring the panel report rejected the application moved by the applicant by impugned order i.e., 20.07.2017. No prima facie case is made
out against the applicants.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
I have considered the rival submission and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicants are facing trial for the offence under Sections 304A and 120B IPC. They moved discharge application before the concerned Magistrate which was rejected and, thereafter, a criminal revision was filed which was allowed setting aside the order passed on the discharge application directing the court below to pass appropriate order. It further appears that on 04.06.2019 fresh order was passed observing that ground taken by the applicants require leading of evidence and applicants cannot be discharged simply at this stage on the strength of plea taken by them. Trial court was also of the view that trial shall continue as summon case and a date i.e., 03.07.2019 for statement of accused was fixed. If the observations recorded by the concerned Magistrate in the order dated 04.06.2019, revisional court order dated 26.07.2018 are taken into consideration, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the order dated 04.06.2019. All the submissions raised by the applicants in the discharge application necessarily require leading of evidence, which could only be done during trial.
Hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no good ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash/set aside the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the concerned Magistrate.
Thus, application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2019 Ujjawal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any good ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order rejecting the discharge application.
Whether the impugned order allowing fresh proceedings requiring evidence leading causes illegality or perversity.
Whether the applicants can be discharged simply based on their plea without leading of evidence at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2005 SCC (Crl.) 1369 Jacob Mathew vs.State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶7
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dr. Ravi Goyal
Om Prakash-VII,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
