Case Title: Shipali Sharma V. State & Anr
If there was a possibility for both points of view and the judge is convinced that the evidence presented to him raised some but not serious suspicions about the accused, the judge will be perfectly justified in clearing the accused.
On August 18, the Delhi High Court noted that when exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the judge cannot merely serve as the prosecution's post office or mouthpiece but instead must take into account the case's overall likelihood, the weight of the evidence, and the documents submitted to the court. The Court continued by stating that a judge shouldn't assess the facts as though he were conducting a trial and undertake ad hoc investigations into the advantages and disadvantages of the situation.
Petition U/S 482 seeking quashing of discharge
A case under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav's bench in opposition to an order made by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that resulted in the dismissal of a revision petition challenging respondent No. 2's discharge.
In accordance with Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband as well as other members of her family, including respondent No. 2 (her brother-in-law). The metropolitan magistrate released respondent no. 2 because he did not discover any evidence to support a case against him. The Additional Sessions Judge determined that the claimed act of respondent no. 2 did not constitute cruelty after the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
False implication through omnibus allegations: Abuse of process of law
The Court took note of Supreme Court rulings that assert that if misleading implications resulting from generic omnibus accusations made during a divorce dispute are allowed to continue, it will abuse the legal system.
The judge may discharge the accused where two views are possible
The Court continued by stating, "The court will be completely justified in structuring the charge and moving on with the trial when the evidence presented to the court reveals significant suspicions against the accused that have not been adequately addressed. However, if both points of view are equally plausible and the judge is convinced that the evidence presented to him raised some but not serious suspicions about the accused, the judge will be perfectly justified in clearing the latter of all charges."
As a result, the Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge's order was upheld by the Court without interference.