Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. DHYANI, J.
Sunil Kumar Gupta - Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand & another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1300 of 2015 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Decided On : 18-05-2017
For the Applicant :Mr. S. K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder., Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of order - Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & others vs. State of U.P. & another, AIR 2013 SC 52 - Section 420 IPC, Section 120-B IPC, Section 239 Cr.P.C., Section 240 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the scope of discharge as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & others vs. State of U.P. & another, AIR 2013 SC 52. It highlighted the principles set out in various decisions and emphasized that the court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence, especially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defense. The court also discussed the provisions of Section 239 and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the said provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in criminal revision no. 208 of 2015. The accused filed a criminal revision, which was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant (applicant herein). Before deciding the application, the Court highlighted the scope of discharge as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & others vs. State of U.P. & another, AIR 2013 SC 52.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the scope of discharge and the provisions of Section 239 and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized the principles set out in various decisions and highlighted the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the said provisions. The Court found that the learned Revisional Court had committed manifest error of law while accepting certain documents as defense to be taken for consideration at the time of framing of charge/seeking discharge by the accused. The Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the scope of discharge, the provisions of Section 239 and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C., and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the said provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing of charge and that the material produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered. It highlighted the principles set out in various decisions and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the learned Trial Court to conclude the proceedings of the criminal complaint case as early as possible, but strictly in accordance with law.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in criminal revision no. 208 of 2015, Deepak Dogra vs. State & another.
2. The applicant initiated proceedings against respondent no. 2, by filing a criminal complaint case. Evidence was adduced by the complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C. charge under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against the accused by the trial court.
3. Aggrieved against the same, the accused filed a criminal revision, which was allowed. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration as per law and as per observations made by learned Lower Revisional Court, vide order dated 10.09.2015. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the complainant (applicant herein).
4. Before this Court proceeds to decide present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it feels its bounden duty to highlight the scope of discharge, as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, including the one in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & others vs. State of U.P. & another, AIR 2013 SC 52.
5. First of all, the Court has to see what is the scope of interference in framing of charge? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra) while relying upon various decisions rendered in Preeti Gupta & another vs. State of Jharkhand & another (2010) 7 SCC 667, Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Pandhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568; Onkar Nath Mishra & others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2008) 2 SCC 561; Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala & another, (2009) 14 SCC 466 and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) vs. State of West Bengal & another, (2009) 6 SCC 364, has observed as follows:
“8. On behalf of the appellant it was argued on the authority of the decisions of this Court in Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajjan Kumar v. Central ureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466, and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 364, that while considering an application for discharge the Court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused persons if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence specially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defence. It was also contended that while examining whether the Court should or should not discharge the accused, it must be remembered, that Section 498-A of the IPC is a much abused provision and that exaggerated versions of small incidents are often resented to falsely implicate, harass and humiliate the husband and his relatives. Applying the principles set out in the above decisions the appellants were, according to Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel appearing for them, entitled to a discharge not only because there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint by respondent No.1 but also because the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the witnesses who were either planted or merely chance witnesses were contradictory in nature. It was argued that two Investigating Officers having investigated the matter and found the allegations to be false, there was no reason for the Court to believe the story set up by the wife who had suffered a decree for divorce in regard to which she had written to the Army Authorities a letter dated 2nd October, 2006 stating that she was not pursuing the matter in any Court. Appellant No.3-Nave
