Uttarakhand High Court
23 December vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 23 December, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:9846
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 999 of 2024
23 December, 2024
Kripal Singh & others
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present application filed under Section
528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 is directed against the order
dated 30.09.2023, passed by the court of Judicial
Magistrate, Kashpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
whereby the said court has proceeded to frame charge as
against the applicants under Sections 323, 380, 427, 504
& 506 IPC, after rejecting the application for discharge;
as well as the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024,
passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.127
of 2023, whereby the revision has been dismissed,
affirming the order passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate.
2. Facts, in nutshell, are that it was stated by the
respondent no.2-complainant in his complaint that he
runs a dairy shop in Kashipur. The owners of the shop
1
2024:UHC:9846
are the applicants. They exert pressure on the
complainant to vacate the shop, even his electrical
connection was also cut regarding which he filed a suit in
the civil court which is pending. On 14.05.2021 at about
5:30 a.m., accused persons/applicants forcibly entered
into the shop of complainant and thrown away the
articles kept therein and also caused him financial loss.
The accused persons/applicants also abused the
complainant and threatened him to leave the shop, else
he would be killed. After filing of the aforesaid compliant,
statements of witnesses under Sections 200 & 202
Cr.P.C. were recorded before the concerned court. The
accused persons moved an application seeking discharge
which was also rejected. The applicants, thereafter,
moved an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking
their discharge. The said application was decided by the
trial court by judgment dated 30.09.2023, whereby the
said application was rejected and the court below
proceeded to frame charge against the accused. The
applicant, thereafter, preferred a revision, which too, met
with the fate of dismissal by the revisional court vide the
judgment and order dated 29.11.2024. Challenging both
the judgments, present C528 application has been filed.
3. Before the trial court as many as three
witnesses were examined by the complainant in support
of his case. The trial court also considered the arguments
raised by the defence that the same may be relevant for
the purpose of evidence and deciding the case on merits,
but on the basis thereof, passing the order for their
discharge does not appear to be justified. Relying upon
the authority of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath
Padhi; AIR 2005 SC 359, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
2
2024:UHC:9846
“No provision in the Code grants to the accused any right to file any material or
document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of
the trial. The material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and
not the one produced by the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled
legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be
considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to
the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the
decisions.”
4. It is a trite law that on the stage of framing of
charge, the trial court is not supposed to examine in
detail the material brought on record by the prosecution,
nor it is required to come to the conclusion that from the
material on record, the charge leveled against the
applicants is finally proved or not. There are concurrent
judgments passed by the court below against the
applicants.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
applicants could not point out any material illegality or
irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the
courts below.
6. As a result, the present C528 application is
devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
7. The applicants are directed to appear before
the trial court for framing of charge as they have been
directed by the trial court.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.12.2024
AK
3
[ad_1]
Source link