Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 690 (ALL)

Vinod Rawat v. State of U. P.

2020-03-04

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Vinod Rawat, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, dated 6.1.2020, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Case No.1243 of 2017 (State vs. Vinod Rawat), arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2016, under Sections 494, 323, 498 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that a Discharge Application was moved before the Trial court, which was rejected by the impugned order, whereas, there was no evidence for levelling charges against the applicant. Informant has left nuptial house on his own will. There was no demand of dowry or cruelty with regard to it. Marriage was of old standing, having good understanding. False accusation was levelled, wherein, above Discharge Application has been rejected. It was an abuse of process of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law and securing ends of justice, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer. 3. Learned counsel for Opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA, representing State of U.P., have vehemently opposed this Application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused materials on record. 5. An Application, being Application U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018, Vinod Rawat and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, was filed before this Court and this Court, while passing order, dated 20.7.2018, has rejected contention of Vinod Rawat, applicant herein, that there is no accusation against him, rather, it was held that perusal of materials on record, and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against applicant no.1, therein. 6. Meaning thereby, contention raised, herein, in present proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., was considered by this Court in above proceeding and it was held that there was no ground for not making out of offence at this stage. Subsequently, Discharge Application was filed, which was objected, heard and decided. 7. 6. Meaning thereby, contention raised, herein, in present proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., was considered by this Court in above proceeding and it was held that there was no ground for not making out of offence at this stage. Subsequently, Discharge Application was filed, which was objected, heard and decided. 7. Apex Court, in the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh vs. Kishan Lal and other, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 773, has propounded that at the stage of framing of charge, all that is required is to see whether a prima face case has been made out. The question whether the charge framed will eventually stand proved or not can be determined only after evidence is recorded. Deciding a case on merit at charge framing stage when the prosecution has got no opportunity to adduce evidence is deprecated. Further, Apex Court, in the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 508, has held that pre trial acquittal, at the stage of charge framing, is not permissible. Even on the basis of strong suspicion, charge can be framed. 8. In present case, informant, right from the stage of registration of first information report till recording of statement, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., reiterated accusation made in the first information report, which was supported by other witnesses, too, on the basis of which cognizance was taken. This was challenged in a previously instituted proceeding, being Application U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018 (Supra), wherein, it was held by this Court itself that it cannot be said that there is no ground for making out offence against Vinod Rawat, applicant herein. Hence, impugned order was well within provisions of law, which does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction, conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.