Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Ramashray Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12510 of 2023
Decided On : 20-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.-Supplementary-affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure 14 to this misc. petition) passed by revisional Court i.e. Additional Session Judge, Court Room No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 45 of 2023 (Ramashray Yadav v. Smt. Shakuntala) as well as order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure 12 to the misc. petition) passed by learned trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 776 of 2018 (Shakuntala v. Ramashray Yadav) and also allow the discharge application filed by petitioner by setting aside the criminal proceeding of Complaint No. 776 of 2016 (Shakuntala v. Ramashray Yadav) as well as set aside the summoning order dated 2.4.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad.
4. In brief, on 17.2.2016, the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner i.e. Complaint Case No. 776 of 2018 (Shakuntala v. Ramashray Yadav) in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad alleging that both the parties solemnized marriage on 17.4.2008 and since 18.4.2008, Opposite Party No. 2 was harassed by her in-laws. She left the matrimonial home in July 2008 and resided at her Father's place and, in 2009, a male child was born out of their wedlock. On 19.1.2016, while she was at the Family Court alongwith her minor son Anmol, she was stopped and was misbehaved by the petitioner/accused.
5. On the basis of statement of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the witnesses recorded on oath, the petitioner was summoned to face the trial on 2.4.2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 500, 509 IPC. After recording of the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the petitioner moved a discharge application under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. on 15.4.2022 which was rejected.
6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Court below had rejected his application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge without recording any reason which is erroneous, perverse and per se illegal.
7. Per contra learned AGA for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention and has stated that there is no illegality in the order impugned as sufficient evidence was available to proceed against the petitioner. The statement of the complainant as well as PW-2 R.P. Yadav, PW-3 Sandeep Yadav and PW-4 Raj Kumar Sharma were recorded at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence available on record, the discharge application was rejected.
8. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Sections 245 and 246 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.
246. Procedure where accused is not discharged.
(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be a
The rejection of a discharge application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. does not require detailed reasoning; only a prima facie case must be established for proceeding with the trial.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and is not expected to go deep into the probative....
Point of law : Magistrate has the power of discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case i.e. even before such evidence is led. However, for discharging an accused under Section 245(2) Cr....
In complaint cases, discharge under Section 245 CrPC required if pre-charge evidence under Section 244, even unrebutted, lacks specific allegations warranting accused's conviction.
A Magistrate must provide clear reasons for discharging an accused under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., especially when multiple allegations exist, to ensure transparency and judicial accountability.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 245(2) and 245(1) Cr.P.C. in the context of discharging the accused at different stages of the cas....
The court clarified that directing parties to file a discharge petition amounts to denial of quashment relief, and ordered reconsideration of the applicability of Section 354A against a female accuse....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
