At the charge framing stage, the court must determine if a prima facie case exists based solely on the prosecution's evidence, without conducting a detailed trial.

JUDGMENT :

MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, as well as Shri Rajesh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record, including the case diary.

2. The applicants, by means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have challenged the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes/Special Court, MPMLA, Ayodhya in Case No. 879 of 2023, arising out of case Crime No. 0471 of 2017, under Sections 188 IPC read with Sections 126-A and 127 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lodged at police station Gosaiganj, district Faizabad (now Ayodhya), copy of which is contained in Annexure-6 to the application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR with false and concocted allegations has been filed by the informant against the applicants, without there being any cogent materiel or evidence and after investigation charge-sheet has also been filed. However, the applicants have challenged the charge-sheet and the summoning order passed by the trial court dated 17.12.2022 and also the entire proceedings of the case before this court by filing an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 383 of 2023 and vide order dated 17.01.2023 the said application was finally disposed of, permitting the applicants to file discharge application before the trial court through counsel, taking all pleas and grounds available to them within a period of 10 days from the date of the passing of the order with a consequential order that if such an application is filed, the trial court shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order and till disposal of the discharge application, it was provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. It is further submitted that it is in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicants have filed a discharge application under section 239 Cr.P.C. however, by passing the impugned order the said discharge application has been dismissed by the special court without assigning cogent reasons. It is vehemently submitted that the trial court, while rejecting the discharge application of the applicants, has not considered the fact that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the ingredients of section 126-A and 127 of the Representation of People Act, 1952 may not attract.

4. Elaborating further, it is submitted that it is apparent on record that the FIR of this case has been lodged on the basis of political enmity and Section 127 of the Representation of People Act relates to an offence for causing disturbance at an election meeting, while the case of the prosecution is not of disturbing an election meeting and when there is no material with regard to Section 127 of the Representation of People Act, the other penal section, wherein the charge sheet has been submitted, remains Section 126-A of the Representation of People Act which is a non-cognizable offence and the investigating agency could not investigate the same without taking permission of the court under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and, thus, no offence is emerging against the applicants and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the special court is liable to be set-aside and the applicants are entitled for discharge.

5. Sri Rajesh Singh, learned A.G.A. however, states that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be seen and it is not a stage where meticulous exercise may be performed by the court, as is required at the stage of culmination of the trial.

6. While drawing attention of this court towards the FIR as well as the statements of various witnesses recorded in the case diary, it is submitted that prima facie a case under sections 127 and 126-A of the Representation of People Act is emerging against the applicants and there is prima facie and sufficient grounds available to proceed further. While drawing attention of this Court towards Section 155(4) Cr.P.C. it is