Raj Pal and another vs State Of U.P. and another

The revisionists, by means of this revision have challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 20.09.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2073 of 2010 (Rajesh Kumar vs. Raj Pal and others) whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionists under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the dispute between the parties is entirely of civil nature regarding which a civil suit is pending before the civil court. However, the respondent no. 2 in order to give the dispute a colour of criminal offence, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated by learned Magistrate as a complaint and who after recording the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the revisionists under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that aggrieved by the summoning order the revisionists approached this Court and challenged the summoning order by way of Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29437 of 2008, in which this Court permitted the revisionists to move a discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. through their counsel, copy of the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by this Court in the aforesaid application is annexure - 7 to the affidavit. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, a discharge application dated 1.6.2009 was moved by the revisionists but the learned Magistrate without application of its judicial mind and without considering the fact that the matter is of civil nature, rejected the discharge application moved by the revisionists by the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 which is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the law laiddown by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another; 2010 (1) JIC 133 (SC).

Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that a perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie shows that there are allegations against the revisionists about hurling abuses and extending threats to the respondent no. 2 and the dispute is not only of civil nature but the facts prima facie disclose that criminal offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. are also made out against the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that only the discharge application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate and in view of the well settled law, there does not appear any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionists, the revision has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The impugned order shows that the court below has rejected the application for discharge after considering prima facie evidence as available on record.

The well settled legal position is that at the stage of framing charge, only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be seen and even a strong suspicion in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient. At this stage the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge.

In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it. The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.

In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. If on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.

In Omwati v. State, Through Delhi Administration & others; AIR 2001 SC 1507, the Hon''ble Apex Court has expressed the clear view that the High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and farfetched reasons, which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons.

In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.