Dismissed

Ram Murti Goswami and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024CRLR/1922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal revision filed to set aside an order rejecting a prayer for discharge. The Court held that once charges are framed, the question of discharge does not arise under the Criminal Procedure Code, relying on precedents.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as it lacked merit in light of the framing of charges.

Ram Murti Goswami and Another vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150854

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1922 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ram Murti Goswami And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anshu Chaudhary,Durgesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionists, namely, Ram Murti Goswami and Manish Goswami against the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 16, Agra in Session Trial No. 390 of 2019 (State Vs. Shyam Murti Goswami and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 1997, under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station M.M. Gate, District Agra whereby discharge application no. 5Ka under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the revisionists has been rejected.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in this case. The Investigating Officer has not conducted fair investigation. Several other factual arguments have been raised to demonstrate that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out and lastly, it is submitted that discharge application of the revisionists has been illegally rejected by the trial court without considering the defence of the revisionists.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed by contending that in this case, charges have already been framed against the revisionists on 20.04.2024 and trial is proceeding, in which, as on date, 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, relief of discharge as sought for by the revisionists cannot be granted at this stage.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 has already been given effect and charges have been framed against the revisionists as noted above. The Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179 has held that after framing of charge, the question of discharge does not arise. The said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another, (1989) 1 SCC 715 . Considering the stage of trial as noted above, this Court is also of the view that once the charges are framed, accused is put to trial and thereafter the accused may either be acquitted or convicted but he cannot be discharged. The discharge post framing of charge is not recognized in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also well settled that defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of deciding the discharge application or framing charge. Even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge.

¶10

In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 17.02.2024.

¶11

The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

However, this order shall not preclude the revisionists to raise all the points in their defence which have taken in the present criminal revision at the appropriate stage of trial.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Shubham

¶14

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

Ram Murti Goswami and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murti Goswami 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

Similar cases

Dhirendra Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Salman Kuraishi vs State of Up 3 Others

Jay Karan vs State of Up and 4 Others

Chandrika @ Kabadi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amrit Lal @ Chhota Baniya vs State of Up and Another

Sadik vs State of Up and 3 Others