The court clarified that during discharge proceedings, it merely assesses whether there’s enough evidence to proceed, without evaluating the credibility or completeness of that evidence.

ORDER

Dated this the 4th day of September, 2023 The revision petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crl.M.P.

No.66/2023 in S.C.704/2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chavakkad, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner would submit that the offences alleged in the case are punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code . According to the petitioner, he is not involved in the case and has not committed any offence. The de facto complainants are aware of the same and they had intimated this fact to the police authorities. However, the investigating authorities did not take that into consideration and arbitrarily retained the petitioner in the array of the accused.

3. The de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner or removing the petitioner from the array of the accused. They have filed a sworn affidavit before a Notary Public to the above effect. The de facto complainants have no objection in exonerating the petitioner from the case, while the matter is pending as C.P.No.60/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kunnamkulam.

4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 before this Court, wherein affidavits of the de facto complainants were also produced. This Court by order dated 01.03.2021 dismissed the same with liberty to seek discharge before the Trial Court.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.66/2023 before the Court of the Sessions seeking discharge. The Sessions Court has dismissed the application by order dated

11.04.2023. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. 6. The petitioner submits that it was on a mistaken identity that the petitioner’s name was mentioned by the complainants. But, later realising the fault, the defacto complainants themselves have given intimation to the Investigating Officer/ Police. However, in the Final Report the petitioner was included as the 3rd accused. The affidavits of the de facto complainants/injured clearly revealed that the revision petitioner is not involved in the case. The de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner from the case.

7. Public Prosecutor entered appearance and resisted the revision petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filing Crl.M.C. No.179/2021. This Court did not grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. This Court only directed the petitioner to file application for discharge. This Court, while considering this revision, should be confined to the legality of the order passed by the court below in the application for discharge submitted by the petitioner.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and

2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

9. The petitioner stands chargesheeted in S.C.No.

704/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code . The case of the petitioner is that he was arrayed as an accused by an error committed by the de facto complainants and the de facto complainants have filed notarised affidavits before the court below. The de facto complainants have appeared before this Court and have also stated that the petitioner is not involved in the crime.

10. I find that with a prayer to quash the Charge Sheet, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 and this Court did not grant the relief. This Court, however, directed the petitioner to seek discharge from the court below. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the court below and the court below has passed order dated 11.04.2023 in Crl.M.P No.66/2023. 11. In the said order, the Assistant Sessions Judge found that while considering the discharge application, the Court will have to look into whether there are sufficient materials to presume that the accused has committed the offence