Dismissed

Lakhan Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019CRLR/413/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 413 of 2019, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed Lakhan Lal's revision petition challenging the dismissal of his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since charges were framed and the trial commenced, the order was sustainable and no jurisdictional error was committed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by Lakhan Lal was dismissed without any relief granted.

Lakhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 413 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Lakhan Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Adya Shankar Chaturvedi,Arvind Agrawal

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.

¶7

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

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist Lakhan Lal with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Jhansi in Session Trial No. 208 of 2018 (State Vs. Lakhan Lal and others) as well as in case Crime No. 158 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 506 IPC, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi whereby application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Prayer has also been made for quashing of entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that it is a case of counterblast, one case in Case Crime No. 440 of 2018, under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 506 IPC was registered against the complainant, hence he has been falsely implicated.

¶10

It is admitted fact that charge sheet was submitted, after investigation cognizance was taken and discharge application was dismissed.

¶11

It is pertinent to mention Section 227 and 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure which are as follows:-

¶12

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 not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

¶13

Section 228 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶14

Framing of charge.

¶15

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

¶16

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

¶17

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

¶18

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of subsection (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

¶19

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:

¶20

"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."

¶21

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 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and others reported in JT 2012(9) SC 312 the Apex Court has held that once the High Court itself was of the opinion that clear facts and correctness of the allegations made can be examined only upon full trial, where was the need for the Court to quash the charge under Section 306 at that stage. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial court forms in terms of Section 228 which is

¶24

subject to final culmination of the proceedings. Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

A perusal of record shows that charges against the revisionist has already been framed and statement of the informant has also been recorded before the trial Court. On this ground also, the revision is liable to be dismissed. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

¶27

The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed . Hence dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 A. Singh

Lakhan Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Up and Another

Ashraf and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinay Kumar Shukla Vs State of Up and 03 Others

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Naresh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another