Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 14 May, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home … on 14 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28371
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3982 of 2025
 
Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra,Jaylaxmi Upadhyay,Rituraj Mishra,Vivek Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra (A.P. Mishra), the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 12288 of 2022 rejecting the application under section 239 Cr.P.C filed for discharge of the applicant and co-accused Mukesh Tiwari. The applicant has also challenged the validity of an order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the trial court framing charges against him and he has challenged the validity of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12288 of 2022, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The aforesaid case arises out of F.I.R No. 319 of 2022 lodged in Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on 05.06.2022 against 12 persons, including the applicant for commission of offences under Sections 337, 279, 328, 471, 468, 467, 420 and 419 I.P.C stating that the informant’s husband late Kedarnath Singh had died on 09.05.2020, in suspicious circumstances, leaving behind two daughters named Vineeta Singh and Kiran Singh and a son named Ajay Singh. The informant’s husband held agricultural land bearing Gata No. 1345, situated on Akbarpur Baskhari National Highway worth about Rs. 8 Crores. With a view to grab the aforesaid land, the applicant, in connivance with the other accused persons, got a fictitious sale agreement executed on 25.08.2020 in favour of his supporter Mukesh Tiwari for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs only after administering some intoxicating injection to the informant’s son. Further, with a view to grab the land, the aforesaid accused persons set up a girl Neetu Singh who produces a certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Safedabad, Barabanki certifying that she had got married to Ajay Singh on 4:30 p.m. on 23.10.2020 and Ajay Singh died in an accident merely after two hours at 6:30 p.m., which accident appears to be suspicious. The name of Neetu Singh was recorded in the Parivar register in connivance with the other accused persons within a period of five days only.

4. Prior to it, on 24.10.2020 the informant’s daughter Kiran Singh had lodged an F.I.R No. 538 of 2020 by stating that her brother Ajay Singh was hit by bus number 65 FT 0481 of UP Roadways Corporation at about 6:30 p.m. on 23.10.2020. He was taken to the District Hospital, Ambedkar Nagar, where he died in the night during treatment.

5. On 25.08.2020, Ajay Singh had executed an agreement to sell his share measuring 0.1740 hectare in land bearing Gata No. 1345 measuring 0.6960 hectare to Mukesh Kumar Tiwari for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs, out of which Rs. 15 lakhs were paid to him at the time of execution of the sale agreement and the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was agreed to pay within a period of three years. This agreement was registered in the office of Sub Registrar Sadar, Ambedkar Nagar and booked on 25.08.2020.

6. On 27.04.2022, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari had sent a notice through his counsel to the informant Smt. Chanda Devi widow of late Kedarnath Singh (mother of Ajay Singh), asking her to execute a sale deed in favour of Mukesh Kumar Tiwari after accepting Rs. 5 lakhs, which was the balance amount of sale consideration under the sale agreement dated 25.08.2020. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract for execution of a sale deed in furtherance of the sale agreement dated 25.08.2020.

7. The informant has filed a written statement stating that the land in question is worth more than 5 Crores and Ajay Singh had not executed any agreement for selling the land worth Rs. 5 Crores for merely Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of Mukesh Kumar Tiwari.

8. The court put a specific question to learned counsel for the applicant as to what was the market value of the land in question as per the Circle rate fixed by the Collector, which land was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs, to which he could not give a reply.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that because of the aforesaid civil suit pending between the parties, the F.I.R in question has been lodged two years after death of Ajay Singh whereas Ajay Singh did not challenge the validity of the agreement during his lifetime.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid facts do not make out commission of any offence by the applicant and it appears that the informant is abusing the criminal justice system to put pressure in a civil dispute which is pending in the court. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar: (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein the Hon’ble supreme Court reiterated that: –

“8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.”

11. Initially, the investigating officer had submitted a charge sheet dated 02.09.2022 against Govind Yadav and Deep Narayan Sharma for commission of an offence under section 420 I.P.C only. Thereafter the Circle Officer, Ambedkar Nagar submitted another charge sheet dated 02.12.2022 against eight persons, including the applicant, for offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The allegation against the applicant was for commission of offence under section 420/120-B IPC.

12. While rejecting the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1318 of 2023 filed by a co-accused Neetu Singh, a coordinate Bench of his court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar for conducting further investigation by some officer not below the rank of Circle officer in F.I.R No. 538 of 2020 and, thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to the Circle Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. The Superintendent of Police passed another order, transferring the investigation of Case Crime No.1319 of 2022 also to the Circle Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. The Circle officer Ambedkar Nagar has filed charge sheet No.3 dated 15.01.2024 against 13 persons, including the applicant, inter alia stating that Ajay Singh had not gone anywhere from Ambedkar Nagar at 21.10.2020 and the marriage certificate of Ajay Singh and Neetu Singh issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Barabanki is forged.

13. Another co-accused Abhishek Tiwari had filed a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4102 of 2023 and this was rejected by means of an order dated 10.05.2023. While rejecting this application, a coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Additional Director General, Special Task Force, UP to takeover the investigation of the case and depute some competent officer to re-investigate, the Case Crime No. 319 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It is in furtherance of this order that the charge sheet No. 3 dated 15.01.2024 has been submitted, which has been challenged by this order.

14. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4102 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P (Criminal) Diary No. 1396 of 224 and the- Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 05.02.2024.

“Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.

Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. are allowed.

Delay condoned.

Issue notice.

In the meantime, there shall stay on the re-investigation.”

15. In para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it has been submitted that the matter is still pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

16. The learned A.A.G has submitted that while invoking the inherent powers of the court, the applicant has not approached this court with clean hands. As a false statement has been made in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereas the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner already stands dismissed way back on 12.08.2024 by the following order.

“We have been informed that the regular bail application being Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5627/20524 is pending before the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

In such view of the matter, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of requesting the High Court to dispose of the pending bail application criminal miscellaneous bail application number 5627/20524 within a period of two weeks.

Pending application(s), if any, shall disposed of.”

17. Another Special Leave Petition No. 14108 of 2024 filed by the applicant against an order in 19.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail No. 5627 of 2024 has also been dismissed by means of an order dated 09.01.2025.

18. Initially, the learned counsel for the applicant insisted that the statement made in para 10 of the affidavit is correct and the special leave petitions filed by the applicant are still pending as per the information available on the website of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but later on he stated that SLPs might have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but this fact was not in his knowledge.

19. The learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha: (2024) 4 SCC 432, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed concern about the tendency to misstate facts before the Court in the following words: –

“6. … one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that:”Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that’s why most people prefer telling lies.”

20. The applicant has stated that he has filed S.L.P (Criminal) Diary No. 1396 of 224, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an interim order dated 05.02.2024 staying re-investigation ordered by the High Court and this S.L.P. is still pending, which statement is false. The plea of lack of knowledge of dismissal of the S.L.P. cannot be accepted when the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is available on the web site of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This conduct of the applicant in stating on oath that a stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is still continuing whereas the S.L.P. in which the stay order was passed stands dismissed long ago on 12.08.2024, is deprecated. This conduct itself disentitles the applicant to seek any remedy from this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. However, as detailed submissions have already been heard, I refrain from dismissing the application under Section 528 Cr.P.C. on this ground alone and proceed to deal with all the submissions.

21. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of some extracts of the case diary. A copy of the statement of the complainant has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit wherein she has stated that Neetu Singh had come to her house along with her two years’ old daughter on 22.10.2020. She was accompanied by Monu, who stated that Neetu Singh would marry Ajay Singh. Neetu Singh said that she had eloped with Govind Yadav and she had come to marry Ajay Singh. She stated that the daughter was of her husband Suraj Singh. She had left her husband Suraj Singh, although the marriage had not been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Upon making inquiries, it came to light that Neetu Singh had eloped with Suraj Singh while she was 17 years of age. Ajay Singh had proposed to marry her on 23.10.2020, but his mother had stated that it was a Friday and his father had died on Friday, therefore, he should marry her on Monday. By that time his sisters would also come. But Ajay Singh stated that he would marry the following day itself. About Rs. 2 lakhs were spent from the bank account of Ajay Singh between 6 and 7 p.m. on 22.10.2020 at Amar Deep Jewellers. Some altercation had taken place between Ajay Singh and his sister Kiran Singh and the latter had called police by dialing 112. Neetu Singh immediately called someone and went away threatening that she would marry Ajay Singh and Ajay Singh would die. Ajay Singh also went away following Neetu Singh. It happened at about 10 a.m. Police reached there after sometime.

22. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this statement indicates that the marriage between Ajay Singh and Neetu Singh was solemnized with the knowledge and consent of his family members. He has submitted that the material on record does not even prima facie make out commission of cheating by the applicant and the learned trial Court ought to have discharged the applicant under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

23. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar: (2000) 4 SCC 168, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“13. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as:

“415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.

Explanation.–A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.”

The section requires–

(1) deception of any person;

(2)(a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.”

24. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that when no offence is made out against the applicant, the trial Court ought to have discharged him. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the following principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal: (1979) 3 SCC 4: –

“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 however 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.”

(Emphasis added)

25. In Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P.: (2024) 10 SCC 651, it was held that: –

“27. …Though this provision (Section 227 Cr.P.C.) is couched in negative it obligated the court concerned to unfailingly consider the record of the case and document submitted therewith and also to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is available thereunder. Certainly, if the answer of such consideration is in the negative, the court is bound to discharge the accused and to record reasons therefor. The corollary is that the question of framing the charge would arise only in a case where the court upon such exercise satisfies itself about the prima facie case revealing from “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” against the accused concerned. In short, it can be said in that view of the matter that the intention embedded is to ensure that an accused will be made to stand the ordeal of trial only if “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” discloses ground for proceeding against him. When that be so, in a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227CrPC, it is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before the Court. We are not oblivious of the fact that normally, the Court is to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage of Section 227CrPC. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227CrPC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection.”

26. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the law regarding scope of exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code was considered. The relevant part of the judgment is being reproduced below: –

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

27. In State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai: (2009) 8 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“52. …It is true that at this stage even a defence of an accused cannot be considered. But, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr Tulsi that where the entire materials collected during investigation have been placed before the court as part of the chargesheet, the court at the time of framing of the charge could only look to those materials whereupon the prosecution intended to rely upon and ignore the others which are in favour of the accused.

53. The question as to whether the court should proceed on the basis as to whether the materials brought on record even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety disclose commission of an offence or not must be determined having regard to the entirety of materials brought on record by the prosecution and not on a part of it. If such a construction is made, sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall become meaningless.”

28. However, in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R Soundirarasu: (2023) 6 SCC 768, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: –

“72. The real test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless under Section 239 CrPC is that whether the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever, the accused should be discharged under Section 239 CrPC. The trial court will have to consider, whether the materials relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant herein for the purpose of framing of the charge, if unrebutted, make out any case at all.

73. The provisions of discharge under Section 239 CrPC fell for consideration of this Court in K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar (2000) 8 SCC 547, and it was held that the questions regarding the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence to proceed further are not required to be considered by the trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482. It was observed as follows : (SCC p. 549, para 4)

“4. The trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 3 SCC 259, the High Court or the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical approach to sieve the complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients of offence with which the accused is charged. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial but not during the initial stage.”

74. In State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515, this Court observed and held in para 25 as under : (SCC p. 526)

“25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)

’29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.’ “

75. The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 239 and 240 CrPC, are therefore fairly well-settled. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be “groundless”. The section mandates that the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if after: (i) considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii) examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless i.e. either there is no legal evidence or that the facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage — the only consideration at the stage of Sections 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless.

76. This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution–the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused can be said to be “groundless”.

77. The word “ground” according to Black’s Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word “groundless” would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever.

(Emphasis added)

29. In CBI v. Aryan Singh: (2023) 18 SCC 399, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the High Court had allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and had quashed the proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“6….As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency.

7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.

30. Towards the close of submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant himself submitted that the prosecution case would at the most make out an offence under section 471 I.P.C and rest of the offences are not made out. When the learned Counsel for the applicant himself admitted that the material available at this stage may make out some offence, it does not remain a case of discharge or quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant.

31. When we examine the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, it appears that the original tenure holder of the land in dispute was late Kedarnath Singh, husband of the informant Champa Devi and father of the deceased Ajay Singh. Ajay Singh had executed an agreement to sell 0.1740 hectare of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs, out of which Rs. 15 lakhs were paid to him and Rs. 5 lakhs were agreed to be paid within three years after the date of the agreement i.e. 25.08.2020. The informant claims that the land is worth Crores of Rupees and the applicant has not disclosed the market value of the land as per the circle rate fixed by the Collector. Ajay Singh died an unnatural death on 23.10.2020 at about 6:30 p.m. It is said that Ajay Singh had married Neetu Singh on 23.10.2020 at 4:30 p.m. There are contradictory claims regarding marriage of Ajay Singh with Neetu Singh. One claim is that he married Neetu Singh in the house of Sheela Singh. Another claim is that Arya Samaj Mandir Safedabad, Barabanki had issued marriage certificate between Ajay Singh and Neetu Singh. The informant alleges that Neetu Singh was set up to grab the property of Ajay Singh as his wife whereas no marriage was actually performed between Ajay Singh and Neetu Singh. It is alleged that the applicant had hatched the conspiracy for commission of the offence.

32. The statements that have been annexed with the record make out a case for trial of the applicant. The detailed evaluation of merits of the charges cannot be done by this court at this stage by holding a mini trial and that too, without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case by leading evidence before the trial court.

33. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that this application filed under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

Order Date: 14.05.2025

Preeti.