Dismissed

Ankit Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023CRLR/3653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision filed by the accused against the trial court's order rejecting their discharge application under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, upholding that the trial court correctly found a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Ankit Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193145

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3653 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Ankit Jain And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 4.4.2023 and corrected order dated 18.4.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge(J.D.)/FTC(Offence against the Women), Saharanpur in Case No. 672 of 2021(State vs. Saurabh Jain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, by which the discharge application filed on behalf of revisionists was rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 had lodged a first information report on 8.8.2021 against her husband and other family members of her husband including revisionists and case was registered as Case Crime No.108 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against husband and other in-laws including revisionist. The revisionist had moved discharge application, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 4.4.2023 corrected on 18.4.2023, which are impugned in this criminal revision.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionists have no concern with family affairs of opposite party no.2 and her husband but on account of being close relatives of husband of opposite party no2, they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the Court below has erred in rejecting the discharge application without considering the evidence and material collected during investigation.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the victim had supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses had also named the revisionists and the Investigating Officer, after conducting fair investigation, has submitted chargesheet against revisionists and the discharge application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that there are sufficient material against revisionists.

¶11

Considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the power of discharge is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2 SCC 561 . The relevant paragraph No.11 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

"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."

¶14

The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709 , has held that at the time of deciding the application for discharge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and consider the entire evidence and material which are available on record. The relevant paragraph 29 is quoted below:-

¶15

"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."

¶16

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground against the accused or not and the Court is not required to consider the evidence in detail and appreciate evidence to conclude that there are sufficient materials for conviction of the accused. Only prima facie satisfaction of learned trial court is required at the time of framing of charges. Relevant paragraph 7 is quoted herein below:-

¶17

"7. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima

¶18

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."

¶19

It is well settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases that at the time of framing of charges the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and materials, which are available on record to 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.

¶20

The discharge application filed by the revisionists was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court after prima facie satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence and material against the accused revisionists for framing charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶21

Learned counsel for revisionists has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

The criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.10.2023

¶24

P.P.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Jain and 3 Others 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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sachin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omvir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Birendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another