Criminal revision against the rejection of a discharge application. The High Court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the discharge application as a prima facie case was made out against the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and ISMIPR Principles.
Criminal revision dismissed; interim order, if any, discharges.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201771
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3470 of 2023
Revisionist :- Vinay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
227. 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.
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post-office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
reach at the conclusion for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, then the charges are to be framed.
Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Virendra
Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal revision against the trial court's order rejecting the discharge application.
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations under Section 376 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherReferred¶15
Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561 · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and othersReferred¶18
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others, 2014 (11) SCC 709 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal SoniReferred¶20
State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinay Singh
State of U.P. and Another
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
