The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge sheet and framing of charges must be justified based on the facts and legal interpretations provided by the Apex Court and other judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of parties, application is being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 & 22.2.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case No. 714 of 2021 (State vs. Ashok Rawat and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 358 of 2020, under Sections 389, 386, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Hathras.

4. Brief facts of the case are that earlier an FIR has been lodged against the applicants on 22.10.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0358 of 2020 under Sections 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of informant-opposite party no.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2020. Thereafter, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. Before framing of charges, applicants have filed discharge application on 10.8.2022, which was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2022 by C.J.M., Hapur. After rejection of discharge application, learned Court has also framed charges under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 vide order dated 22.2.2023, which is also under challenged in the present application by filing amendment application. Amendment application was allowed vide order dated 12.4.2023 and same was also incorporated in the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that for deciding discharge application, it is required on the part of Magistrate to see FIR, Case Diary, Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Charge Sheet.

6. She next submitted that for submitting the charge sheet under Section 386 read with Section 383 IPC, it is required to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, but in the present case, neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is such allegation about the delivery of any valuable property as defined in Section 383 IPC. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 386 IPC. In support of his contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court as well as judgments of this Court in the cases of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357, Bhupinder Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 1 ACR 816, Mohammad Ubaid vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30337 of 2023 on 2.8.2023 and Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Application U/S 482 No.5688 of 2018.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that so far as Section 389 IPC is concerned, there is no allegation of fear of accusation either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, no case is also made out under Section 389 IPC.

8. She further submitted that likewise as per FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation upon the accused-applicant to enter inside the house of the victim, but his presence was only shown at the residence. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 452 IPC.

9. She also submitted that once there is no case is made out under Section 452 IPC certainly no case would also be made out under Section 504, 506 and 507 IPC.

10. She next submitted that Inquiry Officer without properly considering the material available on record has submitted that charge sheet, which is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Ritaben @ Ramaben W/O Karnabhai Solanki vs. St