IMPORTANT POINT
The court must evaluate F.I.R. allegations and evidence without conducting a mini trial when considering a discharge application.

ORDER :

1. The instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 7223 of 2022, corresponding to G.R.No. 952 of 2022, arising out of Argora P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner under 239 of Cr.P.C. was partly rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Revision are that the informant had given the written information with the Police Station concerned with these allegations that the informant are four brothers including himself. They are Sheo Prakash Sinha, Vijay Prakash Sinha, Ravi Prakash Sinha and Jay Prakash Sinha. Two brothers Sheo Prakash Sinha and Ravi Prakash Sinha reside on the ground floor and a few days back, his brother Ravi Prakash Sinha had gone to his flat. The rest of his two brothers Vijay Prakash Sinha and Jay Prakash Sinha both reside on the upper floor. On 24.02.2021 the informant was going to the lavatory. He was obstructed by Vijay Prakash Sinha to go there and began to beat him. His wife and his son both came to rescue Vijay Prakash Sinha and his son Harsh Vijay @ Rishi both had also assaulted them whereby his wife, he and his son sustained injuries. On this written information case crime Argora P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 was registered under Sections 341/323/354/34 of I.P.C. The I.O. conducted the investigation and statement of the informant was recorded in para 3 of the case diary in which he reiterated all the allegations which were made in the written information itself. In para 6 of the case diary statement of Subham Prakash, son of informant and in para 7 of the case diary statement of Indira Sinha, the wife of the informant was also recorded in which both have corroborated the prosecution story. In para 15 of the case diary statement of independent witness Anita Minz was also recorded who also corroborated the prosecution story. In para 24 of the case diary is the injury report of Jay Prakash Sinha, Shubham Prakash and Indra Sinha.

3. The I.O. after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet against Vijay Prakash Sinha and Harsh Vijay for the offence under Sections 341/323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The accused persons Vijay Prakash Sinha and Harsh Vijay both had moved the application for discharge before the trial court. The very application was partly allowed by the learned court-below and partly rejected vide order dated 12.07.2023 whereby both the accused were discharged from the offence under Sections 354 of I.P.C.; while the discharge application was rejected for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

5. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 this Cr. Revision has been preferred on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned court-below is based on erroneous finding. The civil dispute was also pending between the parties. There was no material on record to substantiate the allegation made in the F.I.R. The impugned order has been passed by the learned court-below without applying judicial mind.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel of parties and perused the material on record.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that indeed there was a civil dispute between the parties and on petty matter the quarrel arose between them. So far as the injuries are concerned, the same might have sustained on account of falling in the scuffling and there was a separate lavatory of the petitioner and the informant. As such the very basis of the F.I.R. is based on wrong assertions and contended that the learned court-below has not considered on these materials while rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. as well.

8. The learned Counsel for the O.P.No. 2 and the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that there are specific allegation in the F.I.R. itself and the sa