The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The Court held that once charges are framed, the remedy of discharge is not available under the Cr.P.C.; the accused must face trial leading to acquittal or conviction.
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. - 2024:AHC:133718
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2179 of 2024
Revisionist :- Ashwini Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surya Shanker Pandey,Vivek Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut in Case No. 5380 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 0434 of 2021, police station Nauchandi, district Meerut whereby discharge application of the accused/revisionist dated 20.11.2023 has been rejected.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer, offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is not made out against the revisionist, therefore, trial Court has committed legal error in rejecting his discharge application.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that in this case, charge has already been framed against the revisionist on 09.10.2023, therefore, the accusedrevisionist cannot be discharged.
Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that one of the issue in the present case is whether after framing of charge, discharge application is maintainable or not. The trial Court while rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Liyakat Vs. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 453 (Allahabad)] wherein it has been held that the charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicions founded on materials before the Court which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. This Court is also of the view that after framing of charge on 09.10.2023, the discharge application dated 20.11.2023 of the revisionist was not maintainable. The Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179 has also held that concept of discharge and acquittal are entirely different. 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 even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge.
So far as submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is not made out against the revisionist is concerned, this Court is of the view that in the light of Section 216 Cr.P.C., charge can be altered at any stage by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties concerned before the trial Court.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.02.2024, which is flawless.
The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court within a week.
Order Date :- 21.8.2024
Shubham
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a discharge application is maintainable after the framing of charge under the Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ratilal Bhanji MithaniRelied on¶11
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
