Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Vikram Johar Revisionist v. State Of U.P. And Another Opposite Partys.

Allahabad High Court

Feb 6, 2017

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Judgment Summary — Naheed Ara Moonis, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision arises from an order dated 29.11.2016 in which the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 rejected a discharge application moved by the applicant in Case No. 483 of 2013 under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura. An FIR had been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Opposite Party No. 2 against the revisionist. After investigation, a final report was submitted on 17.04.2012 which was rejected by the court below and the police were directed to investigate further. A second final report in favour of the applicant was again controverted by a protest petition filed on 30.10.2012. The Magistrate on 21.12.2012 rejected that final report and ordered that the protest petition be treated as a complaint; statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded and the revisionist was summoned on 07.02.2014.

The revisionist challenged the summoning order by filing a Writ petition under Section 482 (Petition No. 28504 of 2014), which was disposed on 30.07.2014 with a direction to move a discharge application before the trial court; the direction further provided that no coercive steps would be taken till disposal of that discharge application. The discharge application was filed and subsequently rejected by the court below by the impugned order dated 29.11.2016. This revision petition challenges that rejection.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether this Court should interfere with the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 rejecting the applicant's discharge application in the criminal proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Whether the trial court erred procedurally or otherwise in rejecting the discharge application at the stage ordered by the higher court, effectively revisiting the summoning order.
Whether appreciation of evidence and evaluation of truthfulness/sufficiency of prosecution evidence is permissible at the stage of framing charge or rejecting a discharge application, or whether such matters must await the trial/prosecution evidence stage.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant contended that no case was made out against him and that false allegations were levelled in the complaint to pressurize the applicant for the release of insurance money.
It was argued that the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application without assigning adequate reasons and did so mechanically, which would amount to a review of the summoning order.

State's Arguments (through the A.G.A.)

The A.G.A. contended that the revisionist had been lawfully summoned on 07.02.2014 and that the court below rightly rejected the discharge application; the impugned order did not suffer from any procedural defect according to the State.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Palvinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh, 2009 (65) ACC 399	That the Court cannot enter into appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; guidance on limitations of preliminary scrutiny.	The court relied on this authority to support the proposition that truthfulness and sufficiency of evidence should be adjudged at trial and not at the stage of framing charges or rejecting discharge where only prima facie satisfaction is required.
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209 (SC)	Established the principle followed in Palvinder Singh that evaluation/appreciation of evidence is not to be undertaken at the stage of framing charges.	The court followed this decision (as cited in Palvinder Singh) to reinforce that the trial court's jurisdiction under Section 245 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining allegations, witness statements and documentary evidence without undertaking detailed appreciation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the facts and submissions and declined to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. The reasoning proceeded as follows:

The court observed that the revisionist should have appeared before the trial court and that, after the prosecution led its evidence, the revisionist could have moved a discharge application at the appropriate stage. In other words, the court placed weight on the procedural posture and the fact that prosecution evidence had not yet been led.
The court found no change in circumstances since the summons were issued and emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance or passing a summoning order only a prima facie case needs to be seen; therefore, there was no procedural illegality in the impugned order rejecting discharge.
The court reiterated the legal principle that questions of truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of evidence are to be adjudicated at the trial stage. It held that it would be improper to truncate proceedings at the stage of framing charges or rejecting discharge applications because that would require appreciation of evidence prematurely.
Relying on the cited precedents (Palvinder Singh and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi), the court noted that the trial court's jurisdiction under Section 245 Cr.P.C. (as referenced in the opinion) is to examine allegations, statements of witnesses and documentary evidence and that charges can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. Detailed marshaling and appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage.
The court refused to engage in speculation about possible harassment of the accused by imagining alternative factual paths; it refrained from making an "imaginary journey" into hypothetical consequences of continuing the proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The revision petition is dismissed.

Implications:

Direct effect: The impugned order dated 29.11.2016 rejecting the discharge application stands; the trial court's continuation of proceedings against the applicant is preserved.
Procedural consequence: The court affirmed that at the stage of cognizance/summoning and at the preliminary stage for framing charges only prima facie scrutiny is required; rigorous appreciation of the prosecution evidence is to be reserved for the trial stage.
Precedential effect: The opinion applies and follows existing higher-court authorities (as cited) but does not purport to lay down any new legal principle or broader precedent beyond applying those authorities to the facts; no novel legal rule was announced in this judgment.

This summary is derived exclusively from the provided opinion text and does not include information beyond what that opinion explicitly contains.

Show all summary ...

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.11.2016, whereby, the discharge application has been moved by the applicant in Case No. 483 of 2013, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kosikala, District-Mathura, was rejected by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1.

3. It submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that an FIR was lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the O.P. No. 2 against the revisionist and after completion of investigation, the final report was submitted on 17.04.2012. However, the court below rejected the final report and directed the police concerned for further investigation, the police concerned has again submitted the final report in favour of the applicant. Thereafter second protest petition was filed on 30.10.2012. The Learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.12.2012 again rejected the final report and ordered to treat the protest petition as complaint case. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the statement of the complainant and witnesses and summoned the revisionist vide order dated 07.02.2014. The applicant aggrieved by the said order had challenged the summoning order by filing further 482 petition no. 28504 of 2014 which was disposed of by order dated 30.07.2014, further directed the applicant to move a discharge application to be considered by the court below at the appropriate stage in accordance with law and till disposal of the application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. in pursuance thereof, the applicant has moved the discharge application and the same was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 29.11.2016.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the no case is made out against the applicant, and false allegation has been made in the complaint only to pressurize the applicant to get the claim of insurance money released. Learned Magistrate without assigning any adequate reason rejected the discharge application against the summoning order under section 504, 506 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the discharge application has been rejected by the court below in a mechanical manner and without application of mind that it would amount to review of the summoning order.

5. Per contra the learned A.G.A. has contended that revisionist has summoned in the present case on 07.02.2014. The discharge application has rightly been replied by the Court below which do not suffer from any proceedings.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the courts below rejecting the discharge application. The revisionist ought to have appeared before the Court below and after the prosecution evidence is led he could have filed discharge application. There is no change in the circumstance since the summoning order was passed against the revisionist. At the stage of taking cognizance or passing the summoning order only prima facie case has to be seen. There is no procedural illegality in the order impugned.

7. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged, therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing charges against the accused applicants. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2009 (65) ACC 399, Palvinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh following the decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209 (SC), wherein it has been held that the Court cannot enter into realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of the charge itself. The jurisdiction of the trial court while exercising power under Section 245 Cr.P.C. is to look into the allegations made in the complaint, statement of witnesses and documentary evidence. The charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshaling and appreciation of evidence is not within the domain of this Court to go into merits and demerits of the allegation simply because the applicant alleges malus animus against the complainant-opposite party no. 2. This Court would also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may have caused to the applicants on account of filing the complaint.

8. Accordingly, this revision sans and merit is dismissed.