Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193145

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3653 of 2023

Revisionist :- Ankit Jain And 3 Others

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned

AGA for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated

4.4.2023 and corrected order dated 18.4.2023 passed by learned Civil

Judge(J.D.)/FTC(Offence against the Women), Saharanpur in Case No. 672 of

2021(State vs. Saurabh Jain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2021

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station

Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, by which the discharge application filed on

behalf of revisionists was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 had lodged a first information

report on 8.8.2021 against her husband and other family members of her husband

including revisionists and case was registered as Case Crime No.108 of 2021,

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354, 313 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The

Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against

husband and other in-laws including revisionist. The revisionist had moved

discharge application, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated

4.4.2023 corrected on 18.4.2023, which are impugned in this criminal revision.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists are innocent

and have been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionists have no concern with

family affairs of opposite party no.2 and her husband but on account of being close

relatives of husband of opposite party no2, they have been falsely implicated in this

case. It is further submitted that the Court below has erred in rejecting the discharge

application without considering the evidence and material collected during

investigation.

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the victim had supported the

prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and

other witnesses had also named the revisionists and the Investigating Officer, after

conducting fair investigation, has submitted chargesheet against revisionists and the

discharge application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. It is

further submitted that there are sufficient material against revisionists.

Considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

The approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the power 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

appl