Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2235 (ALL)

Ram Bhan Singh @ Badki v. State of U. P.

2016-06-24

MANOJ MISRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J. This case has been put up before this Bench under nomination of Hon'ble Senior Vacation Judge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 31.05.2016 and 30.07.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge 15th, Kanpur Nagar and Metropolitan Magistrate 9th, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 448 of 2015 and Complaint Case No. 1926 of 2012, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bidhuna District Kanpur Nagar respectively by which the application of the applicant seeking discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. 4. It appears that a complaint was filed against the applicants and others which was supported by statement made under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, the applicants were summoned by order dated 18.11.2014. Against the order dated 18.11.2014, the applicants filed application under Section 482 No. 6701 of 2015 seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the proceedings were initiated by levelling false allegations because there were pending property disputes between the parties. This Court, vide its order dated 20.03.2015, disposed of the application u/s 482 No. 6701 of 2015 by observing that it was not open to the Court, at that stage, to examine the correctness of the allegations in exercise of its inherent power but it would be open to the applicants to approach the court below to seek for discharge before framing of the charge. 5. It appears that pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the applicants moved a discharge application before the court below which was rejected by order dated 30.07.2015 against which a revision was filed which was also dismissed. 6. A perusal of the orders passed by the courts below would go to show that the court below found that from the allegations made in the complaint which were supported by statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case to proceed against the applicants was made out and the defence set up by the applicants that the allegations were false because there were pending civil disputes between the parties was not to be considered at that stage. 7. 7. I do not find any legal error in the orders passed by the court below. 8. It is well settled in law that once the allegations do make out a prima facie case disclosing commission of offence and those allegations are substantiated, prima facie, by recording statement of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, the question of dismissing the complaint as groundless does not arise because at the time of considering the discharge application, the defence of the accused is not to be considered. Since in the present case, the statement of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution case, the complaint cannot be said to be groundless, I therefore find no good reason to entertain this application. More over, from the record, it does not appear that statement of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., therefore, after recording of statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. the accused would have right to apply for discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed.