JUDGMENT : 1. Complainant, Sudhir Kumar Sharma (Opposite Party No. 2) lodged a FIR dated 29.07.2019 against seven named and two unknown persons for committing an offence under Sections 306, 506 IPC. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against seven accused persons (applicants) as well as one Chitra alias Bebi. 2. Accused, Chitra alias Bebi has filed Application under Section 482 No. 316 of 2020 before this Court and the same was allowed by a detailed and reasoned order dated 16.07.2021, which was challenged by complainant before Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7796 of 2021, which was disposed of without interfering with order by following observations: “We see no reason to interfere. Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner however, apprehends that the observations made by the High Court during the course of its order may be read against the prosecution. According to us, such apprehension is totally misconceived. The matter shall be dealt with by the concerned court at every stage purely on the merits of the matter. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 3. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicants, has vehemently placed reliance on aforesaid judgment that findings therein are completely applicable to applicants that no case was made out against them as well. 4. Above submission was vehemently opposed by learned AGA appearing for State as well as Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that case of Chitra alias Bebi was on different footing as despite being a relative she was not named in FIR and her name was disclosed only during investigation and findings in above referred order are qua to applicant therein, therefore, they are not applicable to case of applicants herein. He also referred observations of Supreme Court referred above. 5. In order to appreciate and to consider rival submissions, I have carefully perused the order passed by Coordinate Bench in Chitra alias Bebi (supra). 6. Facts of the case (as mentioned in Chitra alias Bebi) are that: “prosecution commenced on a FIR lodged by the deceased's brother, Rahul Kumar Sharma, on 28.07.2019, about the suicidal death of his brother on 25th of July, 2019. 6. Facts of the case (as mentioned in Chitra alias Bebi) are that: “prosecution commenced on a FIR lodged by the deceased's brother, Rahul Kumar Sharma, on 28.07.2019, about the suicidal death of his brother on 25th of July, 2019. The FIR nominates the deceased's in laws, numbering seven, including his wife Smt. Menka alias Monty, his mother-in-law Smt. Kusum Lata, his three sisters-in-law, to wit, Indu Sharma, Chhaya Sharma and Romika Sharma, besides his brother-in-law Rajat Sharma. Another person nominated is one Rajendra Chaudhary, said to be an uncle of sorts to the deceased's inlaws. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The substance of the information, read to the police, says that the named in-laws of the deceased were frequently troubling him and he was in distress. Rajendra Chaudhary had repeatedly threatened the deceased to death and demanded money of him. The deceased had shared the last mentioned fact with the informant, but his in-laws would not give up on their wayward conduct and Rajendra Chaudhary and the other inlaws would repeatedly demand money of the deceased. It is reported that distressed over this issue, on 25.07.2019, at 12 O' Clock, the deceased jumped off the bridge built over the Ganga Garage and into the river, committing suicide. It is also said that he had left home, riding the informant's motorcycle, which was found, and a suicide note in the deceased handwriting was found at the informant's Dharm Kanta, wherein he had claimed his wife and in-laws' harassment as the cause driving him to commit suicide. It is said in the closing lines of the FIR that the deceased did commit suicide because of the harassment that his wife and in-laws inflicted on him.” “Close on heels of the FIR lodged by deceased Mohit Sharma's brother about a case of abetment to suicide against the former's in-laws, the other brother of the late Mohit Sharma, Sudhir Kumar Sharma, lodged an FIR, giving rise to this crime, also against Mohit's in-laws, numbering seven, and two unknown offenders. ….The FIR opens the prosecution narrative, linking it to the crime, when Mohit Sharma's family had gone to the Ganga Barrage to cremate his mortal remains. ….The FIR opens the prosecution narrative, linking it to the crime, when Mohit Sharma's family had gone to the Ganga Barrage to cremate his mortal remains. It says that on 29.07.2019, when the informant of the present case and other members of the deceased's family were away to the cremation ground, at about half past twelve, apparently in the afternoon, the deceased's brother-in-law, Rajat Sharma, son of late Brij Bhushan Sharma, mother-in-law Kusum Lata, widow of late Brij Bhushan Sharma, sisters-in-law Indu Sharma, Romila Sharma and Chhaya Sharma, all daughters of late Brij Bhushan Sharma, and Romila's husband, Amit Sharma, son of Ishwar Swarup, besides Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, son of Hari Singh, together with two unknown men, arrived on board three cars (a Spark bearing Registration No. UP 12 W 1011, a Grand Sports bearing Registration No. UP 12 AK 4545 and an another car) at the informant's house. Menaka, the wife of the informant's deceased brother, was also accompanying the visitors. The incoming party assaulted the informant's sister Indu, his niece Swarna Sharma, together with other members of his family. Upon the informant's sister Indu protesting the assault, the accused are claimed to have strangulated her, with an intention to do her to death. It is further said that the assailants relieved the womenfolk of their ornaments (the description whereof is : 1-4 gold bracelets, 2-3 gold rings, 3-1 silver rakhi, 4-3 pairs of bichchwa, 5-1 gold dolna, 6-2 pairs of gold tops) besides other valuables, all of which they looted. It is further said that the raiding party took away Mohit Sharma's i-10 car, bearing Registration No. UP 12 AH 8305, the keys whereof were with Mohit's wife Menaka. It is also said that the accused kidnapped Abhiraj alias Manan Sharma, the late Mohit Sharma's three-year old son. Towards the tail end of the FIR, it is alleged that while making good their escape, the accused threatened the victims with death. There is almost a postscript mention of the fact that the accused while escaping, when attempted to be restrained by one Prabhat Sharma, son of Jai Bhagwan Sharma and Shailendra Sharma, son of Jagdish Lal Sharma, they threatened these two also with death, and drove away in their cars.” 7. The Coordinate Bench has considered the rival submissions and while quashing criminal proceedings against co-accused, has observed that: “11. The Coordinate Bench has considered the rival submissions and while quashing criminal proceedings against co-accused, has observed that: “11. The incident appears to be relatable to a time when the bereaved family would expect visitors come over to offer their condolences. Assuming that the background of the deceased Mohit Sharma's demise may not have led his in-laws to visit the family and condole the mutual loss, but to believe a bereaved family being raided by the deceased's wife, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law, only to be beaten up and looted by them, appears to be fantastic and incredible.The manner of commission of the crime smacks of a patently mala fide by implication by the informant. The informant and his family appear to be badly aggrieved on account of the suicidal death of their brother, alleging an abetement led by his wife and in-laws. They did report the wife and the Police for that abetment and in connection with that crime, the applicant too is facing trial. 12. The present prosecution, however, appears to be one that is fuelled by vengeance. The deceased's family have taken resort to abuse of process of court, to settle scores. The tangible evidence referred to by the complainant-opposite party and the State is about recovery of two bracelets, said to be robbed in the assault from one or the other women of the deceased's family. These are said to have been recovered from co-accused Rajendra Chaudhary, and not from the applicant. At the time of this recovery, those two co-accused were riding their car and not the car claimed to be looted from the deceased family. Quite apart, movables like jewellery and a car, that are said to have been looted, are invariably property held jointly by the husband and wife, that is kept parked at the husband's place, or the parties' matrimonial home. Jewellery is invariably part of the wife's stree dhan. There could be a situation where the wife took away her jewellery back to her parents' place after her estranged husband's death, or likewise, took along the car that the couple were using, but the passage of this property from the deceased's family to his wife, even if it be true for a fact, would not remotely be referable to robbery. 13. 13. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the present crime is one of assault and robbery, where the offending party were all in-laws of the informant's deceased brother. It is hard to believe, considering the relationship between parties, that the applicant would not be named in a crime of this nature, in the FIR. It would be impossible to miss naming her in the FIR, even if there were an iota of truth to the prosecution. The introduction of the applicant's name at a later stage through statements under Section 161 of the Code, in the clear opinion of this Court, is a red-marker that predicates a mala fide implication for the applicant. The injuries that have been sustained by two of the family members of the deceased have already been found to be simple in nature. No doubt, one or the other injury sustained by Indu Sharma and Swarna Sharma are sited around the neck, but both the injuries are simple in nature, where, for various reasons already indicated, it is difficult to connect these to acts of the applicant. 14. So far as the charge under Section 364 IPC is concerned, that part of the prosecution is based on the allegation about the minor son of deceased Mohit and the applicant's sister, Menaka being kidnapped by the deceased's in-laws, including the minor's mother. It would, indeed, appear to be very incredible that the applicant, the other co-accused along with the minor's mother would kidnap the latter's son from her deceased husband's family. The minor is said to be staying all along with the mother, that is to say, the applicant's sister. In any case, the applicant's involvement in the entire episode appears no more than a device to add to the sting of a mala fide prosecution. To this Court's understanding, there is indeed no tangible material, on an overall view of the matter, that may warrant the applicant to be tried.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The Coordinate Bench has considered the challenge to charge sheet whereas in the present case impugned order is rejection of discharge application filed by applicants. In other words the Coordinate Bench does not find even a prima facie case against co-accused, Chitra whereas in the present case Trial Court found more than prima facie case against applicants on basis of same evidence. In other words the Coordinate Bench does not find even a prima facie case against co-accused, Chitra whereas in the present case Trial Court found more than prima facie case against applicants on basis of same evidence. From above referred part of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench the relevant findings are that, prosecution appears to be one that was fuelled by vengeance; deceased's family has taken resort to abuse of process of Court to settle scores; and, allegation of robbery would not remotely be referable to robbery. The difference between facts of case before Coordinate Bench and present case are that stolen property was recovered from two of the present applicants and not from applicant before Coordinate Bench as well as her name was disclosed during investigation. 9. Applicants before this Court are relatives of Manka and complainant is father of her deceased husband. The crux of allegations are that applicants have entered in the house of their deceased son-in-law and committed offence of robbery. It is also brought on record that order passed by Coordinate Bench was brought on record before Trial Court in discharge application but it was not considered. Supreme Court while rejecting challenge to order, has observed that matter shall be dealt with by the concerned Court at every stage purely on merit. 10. There is merit in the argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicants that findings arrived by Coordinate Bench are in respect of common investigation and same would equally applicable to the case of applicants though Court has to scrutinize, whether allegations are independently made out to extent of more than prima facie case. Coordinate Bench has assailed the criminal prosecution to be fuelled by vengeance and being abuse of process of law in order to settle scores between two families. Aforesaid findings are based on reasons and appreciation of evidence on record. These findings are equally applicable to the case of applicants herein also that manner, place and timing of occurrence appears to be very doubtful. It is improbable to have recovered alleged stolen items from some of applicants being stree dhan. Aforesaid findings are based on reasons and appreciation of evidence on record. These findings are equally applicable to the case of applicants herein also that manner, place and timing of occurrence appears to be very doubtful. It is improbable to have recovered alleged stolen items from some of applicants being stree dhan. In these circumstances, I find no reason to take a different view than the view taken by Coordinate Bench wherein entire prosecution has been assailed and declared it being an abuse of process of law, therefore, prosecution against applicants is also fuelled with vengeance and it being abuse of process of law is liable to be quashed. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer relevant paragraph of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913, which has dealt law on discharge: “29. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (See : Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217 ). 30. (See : Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217 ). 30. In Amit Kapoor v.Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , this Court observed in paragraph 30 that the Legislature in its wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence". There is an inbuilt element of presumption. It referred to its judgement rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659 , and to the meaning of the word "presume", placing reliance upon Blacks' Law Dictionary, where it was defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to take as true until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, incriminating material and evidences put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code, and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the Court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgement..." 12. I am in agreement with the findings of Coordinate Bench and it is a fit case where Trial Court ought to have considered the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench as well as Ghulam Hassan Beigh (supra) that evidence collected is not sufficient to even presume that applicants have committed alleged offence and ought to have allowed discharge application but Court below has committed error in not allowing the discharge application. 13. Before concluding, it would be appropriate to refer few paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of U.P. and another (2021) 5 SCC 435 under the heading “Rule of the lower judiciary in preventive abuse of court process”, as under: “21. All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. That the Trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him. This Court has earlier emphasized on the high degree of responsibility shouldered by the trial Judges in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 . This Court has earlier emphasized on the high degree of responsibility shouldered by the trial Judges in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 . Ranganath Misra CJ (as he was then) writing for himself and two others stated: “42. The trial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the proceedings in Court. On him lies the responsibility of building up of the case appropriately and on his understanding of the matter the cause of justice is first answered. The personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity are the additional aspects which go into making the Court's functioning successful.” “23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land.” “26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis added) 14. The outcome of above discussion is that criminal prosecution launched against applicants is abuse of process of law. 15. In the result, application is allowed. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis added) 14. The outcome of above discussion is that criminal prosecution launched against applicants is abuse of process of law. 15. In the result, application is allowed. Impugned orders dated 01.09.2021 (rejection of discharge application) and 07.09.2021 (framing of charge) passed in Session Trial No. 447 of 2020 (State vs. Rajat Sharma and others), are hereby quashed. Consequently, discharge application is allowed and applicants are hereby discharge from offence under Sections 306, 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 223 of 2019.