2019 Supreme(All) 773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
MOHD FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.
Purshottam Pandey and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1000 of 2019
Decided On : 17-07-2019

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SUMMONING OF ACCUSED - STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGE - SUFFICIENCY OF GROUNDS - DISCHARGE APPLICATION - REJECTION - LEGALITY - PREVIOUS ENMITY - RELEVANCE - SCOPE OF INQUIRY - SECTION 227, 228, 239, 240, 245 OF CRPC - SECTION 354-A, 504, 506, 352 IPC - SECTION 3(1)(10) AND 3(2)(5A) OF SC/ST ACT.

Fact of the Case:

An FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 against the appellants alleging that on 14.02.2018 at 4.30 P.M., when the victim was returning back from her college, the accused persons intercepted her and outraged her modesty by physically assaulting her and on her resistance they addressed her with ugly casteist remarks. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by some persons, who were working nearby. It is further alleged that when the family members of the victim went to the house of the accused persons to protest, accused Purshottam Pandey took out a rifle and threatened them to shoot. The appellants challenged the summoning order by filing an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 585 of 2019 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019 directed the appellants to approach the trial court by filing a discharge application within a period of two weeks from the date of the order with a further stipulation that the trial court will dispose the same within two months thereafter. The appellants filed an application for discharge before the court below highlighting each and every aspect of the matter. However, the court below without appreciating the grounds taken by the appellants in right perspective, rejected the discharge application vide impugned order dated 28/29.04.2019.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of the subordinate court so far as summoning of the appellants to face trial under relevant penal sections, wherein they have been summoned, is concerned. The court further held that the trial court has not erred in rejecting the application of discharge moved in pursuance of the order of this Court. The court held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether, there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Issues: 1. Whether the court below erred in summoning the appellants to face trial under relevant penal sections? 2. Whether the court below erred in rejecting the application of discharge moved in pursuance of the order of this Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merit or de-merits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one. 2. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons.

Final Decision: The criminal appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed and the order of the subordinate court dated 28/29.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Pratapgarh passed in Session Trial No. 442 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2018, under Sections 354-A, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, whereby the discharge application of the appellants was rejected, is confirmed.