Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180654

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5161 of 2022

Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Mishra @ Ramlala And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ahmad Nawaz Ansari,Salman Ahmad

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned

A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party

no.2 and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated

18.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Jalaun at Orai, by which the

discharge application filed by revisionists was rejected.

The brief facts of the case is that opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R. against

revisionists and two other persons which was registered as Case Crime No.0207 of

2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) S.C./S.T. Act

in P.S. Jalaun, District Jalaun on 27.4.2020. The Investigating Officer after due

investigation and after recording the statements of informant as well as injured

witnesses has submitted the charge-sheet against revisionists and other two accused

persons namely Sunil Kumar Mishra and Sushil Kumar Mishra. The trial court had

taken cognizance and summoned the revisionists. The revisionists have moved an

application for discharge before the trial court on the ground that the revisionists

have not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that there is some property

dispute between the parties and proceedings are pending before revenue authorities.

The F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 on altogether incorrect facts only

to create pressure upon the revisionists. It is further submitted that Investigating

Officer without conducting fair investigation had submitted the charge-sheet

whereas the statements of independent witnesses for non-involvement of

revisionists in the aforesaid case was not considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted

that Investigating Officer after conducting fair investigation had submitted the

charge-sheet against the revisionists and two other accused persons whereas the

trial court had already taken cognizance and summoned the revisionists. The

revisionists have moved discharge application which has been rightly rejected by

the trial court.

The provision of discharge is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2008 2

SCC 561. The relevant paragraph No.11 is quoted herein below:-

"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate

the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging

therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients

constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep

into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is

whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not

a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong

suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion

as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would

justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that

offence."

The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Suresh Rajan

and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709, has held that at the time of deciding the

application for discharge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and

consider the entire evidence and material which are available on record. Paragraph

29 of the judgment of Suresh Rajan(supra) is quoted b