The High Court disposed of a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against an order rejecting a discharge application. The Court held that facts required detailed adjudication by the trial court and found a prima facie case against the accused, refusing interference.
The criminal revision was finally disposed of without interference.
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. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1284 of 2021 Revisionist :- Pankaj Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suraj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgement and order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Varanasi rejecting discharge application bearing paper no.11Kha filed by the revisionist under Section 302 I.P.C.,Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi in Session Trial No.266 of 2020 (State Versus Pankaj Chaubey) arising out of Case Crime No.628 of 2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has moved discharge application through counsel on 28.09.2020 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence, whatsoever, was committed by him. There is no proper explanation given by the informant regarding lodging of the F.I.R. with an inordinate delay. There are contradictions in respect of timing of the incident in the statement of the eyewitnesses. He has further argued that learned trial court has wrongly rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant and framed the charges in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and not sustainable in law and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has also cited two judgements of
Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and another, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 663 and M.E.Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengalure,2020 (2) SCC 768 .
Learned A.G.A.appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed prayer of the revisionist. They have stated that revisionist while in the jail has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R. against other accused persons for the same incident which was rejected by lower courts below. Against said orders, Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.16914 of 2020 was preferred before this Court which was finally disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2021 and orders of learned Magistrate and revisional court were set aside. This Court has directed learned Magistrate concerned to pass fresh orders on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ram Gopal Singh and others, opposite parties therein aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by this Court preferred Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2502 of 2021 before Hon'ble Apex Court in which following order dated 26.03.2021 was passed:
"1 Issue notice.
2 Mr Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel, waives service on behalf of the second respondent."
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has cited judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Bhawna Bai Versus Ghanshyam and others (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 and argued that considering discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. court has only to consider as to whether there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show prima facie,
commission of offence by the revisionist in the form of statement of the witnesses and other supporting evidences. The impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the trial judge is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court.
The submissions made by the revisionist's counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the impugned order against the revisionist. The above judgements cited by learned counsel for the revisionist entirely differ from the facts of the present case and have no applicability in the instant case.
The order passed by learned trial judge is well reasoned and supported by case laws on the subject matter. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. No interference is required by this Court.
In view of above discussion, the criminal revision is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 14.9.2021/MN/-
1 issue framed by the court
whether the criminal revision against the trial order rejecting the discharge application called for interference by the High Court
Pankaj Chaubey
State of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
