Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
Mohd Usman And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3122 of 2016
Decided On : 20-09-2019
Firdos Ahmad, Adv., Ram Rasik Tiwari, Adv.
The stage of discharge application is not for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, but to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Discharge Application - Indian Penal Code, Section 498-A, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3/4
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed under Section 155(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a woman alleging torture by her in-laws in connection with dowry demands. The accused filed multiple discharge applications, which were rejected by the court. The revision was filed against the rejection of the discharge application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence presented during investigation were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The court also emphasized that the stage of discharge application is not for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, but to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense.
Issues: The main issue was the scope of the discharge application and whether the allegations and evidence presented were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discretion given to the magistrate under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a due application of mind and an opportunity for both the prosecution and the accused to be heard. The court also highlighted that the stage of discharge application is not for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, but to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously.
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Johari, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed against the Order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Azamgarh in Case No.243 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.365 of 2011, U/s 498-A,504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Dedarganj, District- Azamgarh. Learned court below has rejected the discharge application of accused-revisionist by the impugned order dated 02.09.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case is that complainant- Smt. Kiswari Begam has filed an application under Section 155 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") stating therein that opposite parties are in-laws of her daughter, namely, Shugufta Parveen. She was tortured by her husband and his family member in connection with demand of additional dowry and she was expelled by them from her matrimonial house. She prayed before Magistrate to pass an order for registration of First Information Report against her husband and his family member/revisionist. The Magistrate considered the prayer of complainant and passed the order to police station concerned to register the case under relevant sections and to investigate.
3. In compliance of the order of Magistrate Police Station- Dedarganj, District- Azamgarh registered the Case Crime No.365 of 2011 under Sections 498-A,352,323,504 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against revisionist. After due investigation, police found the prima facie case against the accused-revisionists and submitted charge-sheet against them, upon which Magistrate took the cognizance on 21.09.2012. Subsequently the Court also tried for mediation and the matter was sent for mediation to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the Court, but the attempt was failed.
4. Accused persons appeared before the Court concerned and was released on bail. Thereafter, the accused persons moved an application in Court on 01.09.2014 and prayed for their discharge. The Court considered the application of accused persons and rejected their discharge application. Accused persons again moved the application for discharge which was again rejected by the Court on the ground of earlier rejection of discharge application. Thereafter, accused persons filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court vide Case No.5977 of 2014 and prayed to quash the chargesheet. The Court considered the player of accused applicant and passed the order on 26.02.2014, which reads as under: -
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
By moving the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., charge sheet in Case Crime No.365 of 2011, under Sections 498-A,323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Didarganj, District Azamgarh, has been prayed to be quashed.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC(Cri) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, (1992) SCC(Cri) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.Saraful Haq and another, (2005) SCC(Cri) 283 (Para-10). The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
No case for quashing the charge sheet is made out and as such the prayer is declined.
However, it is provided that the applicants, at proper stage of trial, without seeking any adjournment may plead his discharge, if the charge has already not been framed.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
5. Accused persons again moved an app
