Point of Law: While disposing of the discharge application, application of mind should be reflected inasmuch as per trite law, the learned trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside/quashing the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.4, Sultanpur in S.T. No.145 of 2019 (State Vs. Atma Ram and Others) whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per opposite party no.2, her husband was kidnapped by the petitioner on 25.9.2000. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 9.10.2012 when her grievance was not redressed by the police concerned. Sri Jai Pal Singh has submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not explained the delay of more than 12 years in approaching the court filing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, on such application, an FIR was lodged on 19.1.2013 against the petitioner. The investigating agency carried out investigation and after recording the statements of various persons, some of them were family members and some of them were independent witnesses, submitted a final report on 4.4.2013 (Annexure No.12). Against such final report dated 4.4.2013, opposite party no.2 has filed protest petition on 9.12.2014 (Annexure No.13), therefore, Sri Jai Pal Singh has submitted that even the protest petition has been filed after more than 1 year and 8 months. Such protest petition was allowed by the learned court below on 17.9.2015 (Annexure No.14) and pursuant to the order dated 17.9.2015, further investigation was conducted and the final report was filed in favour of the revisionist.

4. Sri Jai Pal Singh has submitted that actually the issue in question is relating to property dispute within the family and opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. having apprehension that the part of property, which belongs to her husband, might have been usurped by the revisionist and other family members as her husband is missing. Sri Jai Pal Singh has further submitted that the revisionist has already appeared before the court below and obtained bail. After obtaining bail order, he filed discharge application, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.16 to the revision. In the discharge application, the revisionist has categorically indicated that he has not kidnapped the husband of opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that there is no evidence against the revisionist to suggest that he had kidnapped the husband of opposite party no.2. He has categorically submitted that opposite party no.2 has not approached the court for more than 12 years. He has referred some cases being lodged by opposite party no.2 against her husband and he has also submitted that the revisionist is living separately, therefore, he may not be held liable for the kidnapping of the husband of opposite party no.2.

5. Therefore, Sri Singh has submitted that while disposing of the discharge application, learned court below vide impugned order dated 17.8.2021 did not consider any of the submissions and contentions of the discharge application and rejected said application observing that since the husband of opposite party no.2 is missing and specific allegation has been levelled against the revisionist, therefore, prima facie, the case in question is liable to be tried against him.

6. Per contra, Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit, which is an order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned court below summoning the revisionist to face trial under Sections 364/120-B IPC. He has submitted that in the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2017, the learned court below has considered each and every facts in detail. Therefore, Sri Vijay Kumar has submitted that when the learned co