The High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking quashing of an order rejecting an accused's discharge application. The court held there was no perversity in upholding the charge against the revisionist based on strong circumstantial evidence and prior indictments by bank officials.
The criminal revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1075 of 2022
Revisionist :- Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd Zubair,Nasira Adil,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 13.01.2022 whereby the revisionist's discharge application filed under section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. The revisionist-Rahul Singh was charge-sheeted as an accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2016, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.
Contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that F.I.R. was registered by one Shyam Lal Tripartite-opposite party no. 2 against nine named accused including the revisionist with the specific allegation that Rahul Singh-revisionist is one of the accused who has conspiracy in convinced in swindling the amount from the innocent investors.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that Rama Shankar Ayyar, accused no. 1 is the Branch Manager of private concerned B.M.A Wealth Creators and revisionist is petty employee in that organization. From the F.I.R., it is clear that in account of Rahul Singh-revisionist, Rs. 26,64,635/- were credited through NIFT, there was a wrongful loss to the informant. It is settled principle of law that while deciding the application the defence of the accused was not taking into account and moreover, the court is not expected to that main at this stage while deciding the discharge application.
I have perused the order impugned and from order, it seems that the chargesheet has been submitted. During the investigation police has recorded statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., Branch Manager Canara Bank, Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Bank and Branch Manager, Yes Bank, who jointly indicted the revisionist-Rahul Singh for opening the fictitious account.
Under the circumstances, taking into account, the totality of circumstances and limitation of deciding the discharge application of revisionist in the case of "State of Orissa Vs . Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down even in the grave of suspicious discharge application could not be prayed.
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated 03.01.2022.
The present criminal revisions is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 26.4.2022 Vikram
Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.04.28 12:26:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision challenging the rejection of the discharge application.
Whether there was any perversity or illegality in the order rejecting the discharge application under section 227 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath PadhiRelied on¶11
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
