Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Subhash Chand, J.
Md. Imran – Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Cr. Revision No.239 of 2023
Decided on 9.10.2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Dowry offence – Rejection of discharge application – Court concerned while framing charge or disposing discharge application has to take into consideration allegations made in F.I.R. and also evidence which was collected by I.O. during investigation court has to see whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused on the basis of allegations made in F.I.R. and evidence collected by I.O. during investigation – Marshalling of evidence or appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage – Court cannot conduct mini trial while disposing discharge application of accused – While framing charge, defence case of accused cannot be taken into consideration – Documentary evidence which has been adduced on behalf of petitioner cannot be scrutinized at stage of framing charge – All these issues are to be decided at time of trial – From allegations made in F.I.R. which are supported with evidence collected by I.O. during investigation there were sufficient ground to proceed against petitioner accused – Impugned order passed by court below affirmed. (Paras 9, 11, 14, 20, 21 and 22)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the State, learned A.P.P. and also on behalf of O.P.No.2, learned Counsel are present.
2. The instant Cr. Revision was initially preferred against the order dated 24.03.2020 taking cognizance on the charge-sheet by the concerned court. Subsequently I.A.No.325 of 2023 was filed on behalf of petitioner wherein the prayer was amended seeking to set aside the order passed by the court-below while rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2022 in G.R. Case No.1130 of 2019.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 15.10.2019 against the four named accused including the petitioner making allegations in regard to Section 498-A of I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. After this F.I.R. the investigation was concluded and the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner who is the husband of the victim. Indeed, this F.I.R. was the counter blast of the legal proceedings which were initiated on behalf of the petitioner much before the lodging of the F.I.R. and contended that prior to lodging this F.I.R. the complaint was filed on behalf of the petitioner Md. Imran against Syed Md. Salimuddin, Syed Azaz Ahmad, Syed Md. Abdulla, Md. Jawed Akhtar and Sajid Akhtar in regard to the occurrence on 23.09.2019 for the offence under Sections 147, 324, 379, 384,387,420,427, 506/34 of I.P.C.
5. It is also further submitted that on behalf of the petitioner an application was also moved under Section 39 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro which was registered MCA No. 1981 of 2019 against the nine accused persons as a safeguard that he may be implicated in false and fabricated case. This application was moved much before the lodging of the F.I.R. and was registered by the court concerned on 17.06.2019. The petitioner has also given a notice through his Advocate Mr. S.N.Pandey to his wife Gajala Praveen for restitution of conjugal right. This notice was issued on 17.09.2019 it was also much before the lodging of the F.I.R. On the complaint of the petitioner subsequently the court concerned also summoned the accused persons under Sections 323,379,386, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. after an enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The order dated 14.02.2020 is also Annexure of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
6. It is also further submitted that when the petitioner did not come to the matrimonial house for restitution of conjugal right the petitioner had given Talaq to his wife. Copy of the same is also annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband which is in Urdu and Hindi translate is also annexed therewith. This Hukme Talaq Nama is also dated 01.10.2019 much before the date of occurrence shown in the F.I.R. and prior to date of lodging of the F.I.R. and contended that in view of the above from all these documentary evidence the allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. are belied and contended that the application of the discharge which was rejected by the court-below has not taken into consideration all these documentary evidence and contended to set aside the impugned order and to allow this Cr. Revision.
7. Per contra the learned Counsel for the O.P.No.2 and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are also supported from the restatement of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. The learned court-below has rightly rejected the discharge application of the petitioner.
8. It is also further submitted that so far as the document and the evidence upon which the petitioner has relied and has contended that this F.I.R. was t
Discharge application – Marshalling of evidence or appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage – Court cannot conduct mini trial while disposing discharge application of accused.
The court underscored that at the discharge application stage, the focus is on whether sufficient grounds exist for trial based on the FIR and investigation results, not on evidence appreciation.
The judgment emphasized the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime, the requirement to prove overt acts beyond reasonable doubt, and the limited scope of discharging the accused at t....
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
The pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding, and the trial judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
The accused's submission at the stage of framing of charges is limited to the material produced by the prosecution, and the victim's testimony during trial cannot be considered at the stage of discha....
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court must prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without appreciating evidence for conviction.
The court emphasized that a discharge is warranted when the allegations do not establish a prima facie case, particularly in the absence of strong suspicion and material evidence linking the accused ....
Under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code; that presumption can be drawn under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act that the revisionist had sexual intercourse on false assurance of marriage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
