Allahabad High Court
Kayam Qureshi And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71711 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35423 of 2024 Applicant :- Kayam Qureshi And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura and order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.198 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, P.S. Raya, District Mathura pending in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura.
3. Facts which emerge from the record are that opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J.M., Mathura on 26.10.2015 alleging therein that when the opposite party no.2 opposed to purchase rotten meat from the shop of the Zahid and Tahir, the applicants along with others have assaulted the opposite party no.2 and his brother and damaged the households. The Court concerned after recording statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicants vide order dated 02.03.2016. The said summoning order was assailed by the applicants by means of Criminal Revision No.204 of 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2018. Aggrieved by the revisional order dated 29.01.2018, the applicants have approached this Court by means of Writ Petition Under Article 227 No.2832 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2018 asking the applicants to appear before the Court below and apply for bail within two months and the it was also observed that the court below shall make an endevour to decide the bail application of the applicants in the light of the judgement of this court in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151. Thereafter, the applicants moved an application for their discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the court below on 13.12.2023. The applicants thereafter preferred Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.06.2024. The applicants have challenged both the aforesaid orders by means of present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The grounds taken in the discharge application were not dealt with, which discloses that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He next contended that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence properly while passing summoning order against the applicants. He further submitted that the revisional court has rejected the discharge application without properly appreciating the facts and legal aspect of the case. He further submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the allegation levelled in the complaint is very serious in nature. He submitted during conducting enquiry and recording evidence of complainant and other witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., sufficient material with regard to involvement of the applicants in the incident was found, on the basis of which the Court below has summoned the applicants. He further submitted that as far as the impugned order passed on the discharge application is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Court has to look into and consider the material placed before the Court for considering the accused for discharge. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that for framing of charge and discharge it is only the material produced by the prosecution alone, which is to be considered for framing of charge or discharge.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC has held as follows:-
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This how ever does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
8. This ratio was again followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2022 (9) SCC 577 in which the ratio laid down in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) was upheld.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, has observed that the law on the issue of discharge is well settled that, at the time of charge the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no offence is made out in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution then only the accused can be discharged.
10. In the instant case, the trial court while rejecting the discharge application has come to a finding that the material produced by the prosecution is enough and prima facie case is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged. In the instant matter, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicants.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, I see no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura rejecting discharge application as well as and order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2024 and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025
S.P.