Dismissed

Ajit Yadav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024CRLA/4290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The court upheld the Special Judge's decision, finding a prima facie case against the appellants under the SC/ST Act and relevant IPC sections, rejecting the argument that the order was passed without application of mind.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the order rejecting the application for discharge.

Ajit Yadav and Another vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150274

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4290 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajit Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Bharti,Manoj Kumar,Narendra Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned AGA for the State-respondent. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 even in the revised call.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been preferred challenging the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj in S.T. No.572 of 2021 (State Vs. Ajit Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.485 of 2018, under Section 366, 370, 376-D IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj whereby the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of appellants for discharge, was rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellants argued that the impugned order was passed against the weight of evidence available on record and no specific reason was given by learned court concerned while rejecting discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. preferred by appellants. Learned counsel for appellants further argued that appellants were not named in the FIR and they were implicated on the basis of statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and moreso, victim is a married lady. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. which arises grave suspicion and as such, they have not committed any offence as alleged and the order impugned may be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the appeal and supported the order impugned. Learned AGA also submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of appellants, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted

¶11

that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

¶12

The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4] , and it was held that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of whether a prima facie case is made out.

¶13

In the case of Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency [(2019) 7 SCC 148] , Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the judge while considering the question of framing of charge under Section 227 is to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and the Court, at this stage, is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.

¶14

From perusal of the order dated 29.01.2024, it is evident that the court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the matter and allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the victim during the course of investigation, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned have acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by learned court concerned is just and proper.

¶15

In view thereof, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajit Yadav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Yadav and Another v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Leeladhar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jindabad Dubey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Raj vs State of Up and Another

Ompal vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdev and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ashutosh Kumar Sisodiya vs State of U.P. and Another