Neutral Citation No. - 2018:AHC:59213 Court No. - 63 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10741 of 2018 Applicant :- Tej Singh @ Tej Pal Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material on record.

The applicant, Tej Singh @ Tej Pal Singh and one other, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura in S.T. No. 187 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of a Case Crime No. 537 of 2015 under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Mathura whereby the application 19-kha moved by the applicants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected and fixed the case for framing charges.

Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that an FIR was lodged with the allegation that the informant, who is Sub-Inspector in Police, Sadar Bazar, Mathura, was engaged in a bank checking work at Chowki Area, Civil Lines, Mathura whereat he received the information that the person has set ablaze him before the office of ADM (Finance). On this information, informant reached at the place of occurrence and found that the injured was shouting that applicants have grabbed his Rs.14,20,000/-. Since the deceased sustained burn injuries measuring about 90% on his body. He was got admitted in the hospital by ADM (Finance). The investigating officer after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet and consequently the cognizance was taken. The applicants moved discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the trial court which was rejected and fixed the case for framing charges.

Feeling aggrieved, this application was moved by the applicants before this Court.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is totally blind person and, therefore, allegations against him are totally false and concocted. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place outside the office of the ADM (Finance) but there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The ADM (Finance) has carried out the deceased to hospital but his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer as such there is no credible evidence against the applicants. The statement of wife of the deceased was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that applicants carried out her husband from Mathura to Agra for business and grabbed Rs. 14,20,000/- and on being demand the applicants used to torture him with the result that her husband forced to commit suicide.The applicants were mediator in the sale transaction of the house of the Preeti Gupta (wife of deceased) and has no concerned at all. There is no credible evidence on record as such no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge without applying judicial mind rejected the application for discharge. It is also submitted that the occurrence is said to be of 14.12.2015 but FIR was lodged on 15.12.2015 and no explanation of delay was given.

Before adverting to the claim of the parties, it is useful to reproduce to sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as follows:

Discharge.

"227. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. "

Framing of charge.

228. (1) If after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence wh