Dismissed

Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023/1796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting discharge, this Court upheld the lower court's refusal to quash. The Court held that at the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case suffices and no mini trial is permissible to ascertain truthfulness of prosecution weapons or discrepancies.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1796 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda, in Criminal Case No.3748 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2017 (State vs. Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey) u/s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhanepur, District- Gonda.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a false first information report came to be lodged against the present applicant. His further submission is that no ingredients, whatsoever, were disclosed in the first information report to attract the offence of Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 I.P.C. Despite this fact, charge sheet came to be filed mechanically without collecting any credible evidence.

¶8

Due to aforesaid reason, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant moved an application seeking discharge under Section 227

¶9

Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected by means of the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda. He has also submitted that one of the ground, inter alia, for rejection of application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., was that truthfulness or falsity of the prosecution case is to be ascertained and assessed during trial of the case concerned. He has further submitted that in such eventuality, the very purpose of incorporating Section 227 Cr.P.C. would be reduced to a naught. Every section has an object behind its incorporation. Section 227 Cr.P.C. does have its own object in its origin. Therefore, rejection of application seeking discharge on the ground as stated above is not at all maintainable and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶10

His next submission is that learned trial Court, while doing so, failed to appreciate the facts of this case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gonda deserves to be quashed and application seeking discharge deserves to be allowed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that it is trite that charge can be framed on the basis of suspicion. Any effort of appreciating evidence at this stage is not appreciated because doing so either effect the case of accused or effect the case of prosecution. No Mini trial can be undertaken for

¶12

the aforesaid purpose also. Therefore, the instant application deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the first information report came to be lodged under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 I.P.C. by the first informant against four accused persons including the present applicant. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 I.P.C. came to be filed against the present applicant.

¶14

It is pertinent to mention that at the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to see if there is sufÏcient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in afÏrmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial.

¶15

It is trite that at the stage of framing charge,

¶16

learned court below cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the incorrectness of the prosecution case. The law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in 2009 (1) JIC (SC), Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 and State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶17

Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hazrat Deen vs. The State of U.P. and Anr. : 2022 LL (SC) 134 has also held that discrepancies between the first information report and any subsequent statement may be a defence, however, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.

¶18

Having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid settled legal position, at this stage, only prima facie availability of material warranting framing of charge against the applicant is enough and no roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the prosecution's case.

¶19

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned impugned order dated 02.02.2023 is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.

¶20

However, it is needless to mention that if the applicant applies for grant of bail, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 and (Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶22

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J] Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Manoj K.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lallan Kumar @ Lallan Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Thru. Her Mother Manisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Lko. and Another

Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Dharmendra Mishra @ Mukunde Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Civil Sect. Lko and Another