# Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 369
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 10948 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52592
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
Appeal
against
rejection of discharge application- The
Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(1)IX ,14A(2) - Appeal , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 - The Code of criminal procedure,
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1973 - Section 156(3), 160 , 227 - Strong
suspicion, in order to be sufficient to
frame a charge should be based on the
material
brought
on
record
by
the
prosecution and should not be based on
supposition, suspicions and conjectures -
At the stage of discharge and/or quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings,
while
exercising the powers under Sections 482
Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to
conduct the mini trial - At the time of
framing charge or taking cognizance the
accused has no right to produce any
material. (Para -15,17,35,38)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge
- At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
-
Court
has
a
very
limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider
"whether
any
sufficient
materials
is
available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required
to be tried or not - If two views are
possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused
irrespective of result of the trial - At the
time of framing of charge the Court is
required to evaluate the material and
documents on record to decide whether
there is a ground for presuming that the
accused had committed the offence - No
need
to
evaluate
the
sufficiency
of
evidence to convict the accused.(Para -
18,19,30,37)

Appellant allegedly submitted forged documents
for declaring land as Abadi - private forensic
expert's report indicated forged signatures -
leading to charges under IPC and SC/ST Act -
FIR lodged against appellant - alleging forgery
and conspiracy - allegations relate to a property
dispute
-
appellant's
alleged
attempt
to
purchase the property at a lower value -
appellant filed a discharge application under
Section 227 of CrPC - rejected by trial court -
appellant challenged the rejection order.(Para -
3 to 9)

HELD: - Perusal of F.I.R. and material collected
by Investigating Officer based on which charge
sheet has been submitted makes out a prima
facie case against the accused at this stage.
Quashing or setting aside impugned order
refused.
No
illegality,
impropriety
and
incorrectness in the impugned order or the
proceedings under challenge. No abuse of
process of the Court. (Para - 40,41)

Appeal rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,557 of 43,134. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39557 for what follows._

9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
369
such the appeal deserves to be party
allowed.

105. Hence, the Criminal Appeal No.
6710 of 2011 is party allowed. The
conviction and sentence of the sole
surviving convict-appellant Smt. Sumari
Devi for the offence under Section 304B/34 I.P.C. is set aside whereas the
conviction and sentence imposed upon her
for the offences under Section 498-A/34
I.P.C. for 2 years rigorous imprisonment
with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation and for the offence under
Section 4 D.P. Act for 1 year simple
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default clause is hereby confirmed.
Appellant Smt. Sumari Devi is on bail, her
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.
The
concerned
Court
is
directed to take the appellant Smt. Sumari
Devi into custody forthwith and send her to
jail to serve-out the remaining sentence. It
is also clarified that both the sentences shall
run concurrently and the period of sentence
shall be adjusted into the period already
undergone by her in this matter.

106. The Criminal Appeal No. 5490
of 2011 is allowed. The conviction and
sentence under Sections 304-B/34, 498A/34 I.P.C. and under Section 4 D.P. Act
awarded by the learned trial Court vide
impugned judgement and order dated
9.9.20211
to
the
convicts-appellants
Mahendra Kumar, Ram Prasad, Smt.
Manju, Smt. Manisha, Smt. Urmila and
Smt. Kusum is set aside and they are
acquitted of the charges levelled against
them. They are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled
and sureties are discharged.

107. The amount of fine, if any,
deposited earlier by the aforesaid appellants
shall be taken into account by the learned
trial Court while making a compliance of
impugned judgement and order of this
appeal.

108. Registry is directed to transmit
the trial court record to the Court concerned
along with copy of this judgement and
order for necessary compliance.

109. This Court is thankful to Sri V.P.
Srivastava,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri Kamal Dev
Rai and Sri A.K. Mishra, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Mr. Akash Verma,
Research Associate of this Court for ably
assisting the Court.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 369
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 10948 of 2023

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Syed Imran Ibrahim, Vinay Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
rejection of discharge application- The
Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(1)IX ,14A(2) - Appeal , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 - The Code of criminal procedure,
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1973 - Section 156(3), 160 , 227 - Strong
suspicion, in order to be sufficient to
frame a charge should be based on the
material
brought
on
record
by
the
prosecution and should not be based on
supposition, suspicions and conjectures -
At the stage of discharge and/or quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings,
while
exercising the powers under Sections 482
Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to
conduct the mini trial - At the time of
framing charge or taking cognizance the
accused has no right to produce any
material. (Para -15,17,35,38)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge
- At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
-
Court
has
a
very
limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider
"whether
any
sufficient
materials
is
available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required
to be tried or not - If two views are
possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused
irrespective of result of the trial - At the
time of framing of charge the Court is
required to evaluate the material and
documents on record to decide whether
there is a ground for presuming that the
accused had committed the offence - No
need
to
evaluate
the
sufficiency
of
evidence to convict the accused.(Para -
18,19,30,37)

Appellant allegedly submitted forged documents
for declaring land as Abadi - private forensic
expert's report indicated forged signatures -
leading to charges under IPC and SC/ST Act -
FIR lodged against appellant - alleging forgery
and conspiracy - allegations relate to a property
dispute
-
appellant's
alleged
attempt
to
purchase the property at a lower value -
appellant filed a discharge application under
Section 227 of CrPC - rejected by trial court -
appellant challenged the rejection order.(Para -
3 to 9)

HELD: - Perusal of F.I.R. and material collected
by Investigating Officer based on which charge
sheet has been submitted makes out a prima
facie case against the accused at this stage.
Quashing or setting aside impugned order
refused.
No
illegality,
impropriety
and
incorrectness in the impugned order or the
proceedings under challenge. No abuse of
process of the Court. (Para - 40,41)

Appeal rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & ors.,
(2013) 5 SCC 762
2. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005
(1) SCC 568
3. BK Sharma Vs St.of UP, 1987 SCC Online ALD
314
4. P. Vijayan Vs St.of Kerala & Anr.
5. Sheoroj Singh Ahlawat Vs St.of U.P., 2013
(11) SCC 476
6. St. of Bihar Vs Ramesh Singh 1977 (4) SCC
39
7. Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, W.B. Vs A.K. , Bhunja AIR 1980 (SC) 52
8. Palwinder Singh Vs Balvinder Singh , AIR
2009 SC 887
9. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay
Choudhary, AIR (2009) SC 9
10. CBI Vs Aryan Singh etc., 2023 SCC Online
SC 379
11. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. AIR 1960 SC 866
12. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
371

1. Heard Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the
State-respondent.

2. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14A(2) of SC/ST Act, 1989, has
been filed challenging the order dated
07.10.2023 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura, in S.S.T.
No.1999 of 2016 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar
Agrawal), arising out of Case Crime
No.374 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC and Secti
ons 3(1)IX SC/ST Act, Police StationHighway, District-Mathura.

3. Brief facts of the case; that an FIR
has been lodged through an application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. by Dwarika Prasad S/o
Bhoop Singh against the appellant with the
allegations that Bhoop Singh was owner of
Khasra No.97, Gata No.67, situated at
Village-Nawada, District- Mathura along
with Kishan Singh and Dwarika Prasad.
The eyes of the appellant was on this
property and he wanted to purchase the
same
in
less
value,
for
which
he
pressurized Bhoop Singh father of the
informant. He also used caste indicative
words in order to take the property in
question. When Bhoop Singh was alive,
partition of the property was done and as
per the mutual consent between the family
members of the Bhoop Singh, the property
was divided amongst Dwarika Prasad his
brother and mother and application in this
regard was given, on which, order dated
14.07.2008 was passed by SDM making
partition of the property in accordance with
the settlement between the parties. An
application was given by Bhoop Singh for
declaring the land as Abadi, on which order
dated 02.05.2001 was passed by the SDM.
In the records of the aforesaid case, an
application as well as affidavit having
signatures of Bhoop Singh were found. The
signatures in the aforesaid application were
sent for being verified with the signatures
as made by Bhoop Singh in the proceedings
for cancellation of Mukhtarnama, which
were found in the records in the office of
the registry, Mathura.

4. The signatures of Bhoop Singh as
accepted to be made in the proceedings for
cancellation of power of attorney, did not
tally with that of the application as well as
affidavit moved for declaration of Abadi.
Thus, alleging that the appellant has
conspired to forged signatures of Bhoop
Singh in the application and affidavit.
Thus, the allegations in the FIR in short
was that the application and affidavit
alleged to be given by Bhoop Singh
wherein order dated 02.05.2001 was passed
by SDM, was not at all moved by him and
the application and affidavit so placed
before the S.D.M. were having forged
signatures of Bhoop Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that present criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellant are an after
thought, as such the same is not only
malicious but also amount to abuse of
process of Court. He further submits that
the concerned Court below has rejected the
discharge application of the applicant
without assigning any reason, therefore, the
impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed
by the concerned Court below is

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has placed the brief facts of the case which
are as follows:-

(i) The First Information Report
has been lodged on 27.04.2014 at 12:10
PM by Dwarika Prasad s/o Late Bhoop
Singh against the appellant Dinesh Kumar
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Agarwal with the allegations that father of
the first informant, namely, Bhoop Singh
was in possession of land of Khasra No.97,
Khata No.67 situated in village Nawada
District-Mathura along with his co-sharer,
namely, Kishan Singh and Dwarika Prasad.
When Bhoop Singh expired on

30.12.2010, the first informant
became the owner of the property by law of
succession along with his brother Mahesh
Chandra, Vijendra Singh and mother Ram
Kumari.

(ii) It has further alleged that on
14.07.2008 when father of the first
informant was alive, a partition suit u/s 176
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed in
favour of Bhoop Singh, as a consequence
of which partition of the property was
allowed. A restoration application was filed
by the appellant against the order dated
14.07.2008, on 29.08.2013, in which he has
stated that he had filed an application u/s
143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (in short 'of
the Act') and has got the property declared
as Abadi as such the jurisdiction of the
Court under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not
lie. It has been categorically alleged by the
first informant in the first information
report that the application u/s 143 of the
Act which was the basis of the restoration
application is a forged document as his
father had never submitted any application to
get the land declared as Abadi. As such the
appellant has filed a forged and fabricated
application, on the basis of which the order
dated 14.07.2008 was being sought to be
restored. On the said forged application, the
order dated 02.05.2001 was passed by
S.D.M. The signatures of Bhoop Singh were
sent for examination by Private Forensic
Science Laboratory expert, namely, Ms.
Shruti Agarwal to be examined comparing
the same with the signatures of the appellant
made in an application for cancellation of
power of attorney as available in the Registry
office. It has been alleged that the report as
placed by Ms. Shruti Agarwal proved that the
signatures were not of Bhoop Singh, thus, the
present FIR was lodged.

(iii)
The
investigation
was
conducted in different police stations of
different districts and finally charge sheet was
submitted by Investigating Officer of Police
Station- Highway, District- Mathura.

(iv)
While
conducting
the
investigation, the Investigating Officer tried
to get copy of original document for getting
the signatures of Bhoop Singh examined by
Government Forensic Science Laboratory
and went to the extent for sending notices
under Section 160 Cr.P.C. requesting the
appellant to provide original documents at the
earliest. Thus, without getting the original
documents, the Investigating Officer solely
relying upon the alleged Forensic Report of
Ms. Shruti Agarwal (Private Forensic Expert)
as supplied by the first informant himself, has
submitted the charge sheet against the
appellant on 09.07.2015 on which the Court
below took cognizance on 08.10.2015 and
summon the appellant to face the trial.

7. On an application moved by the
appellant before the Investigating Officer
requesting to conduct further investigation
after getting the signatures of Bhoop Singh
verified
by
Government
Forensic
Laboratory and the SSP, Mathura, directed
for further investigation by order dated
09.04.2016. The aforesaid fact is evident
from Parcha No.7 placed at Page-98 of the
affidavit.

8. The discharge application was filed
by the appellant on 24.08.2023 on the
following grounds:-

(i) That the original document
containing the handwriting of Bhoop Singh
was never examined and solely relying
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
upon the report of Private Forensic Expert,
the charge sheet has been submitted.

(ii)
That
the
supplementary
charge sheet was submitted after order of
further investigation by the SSP, Mathura,
which has not been taken into consideration
while taking cognizance.

(iii) The FIR is a counterblast to
the case filed by the company of the
appellant.

(iv) Despite the pendency of
matters before Civil Court, the FIR has
been lodged to give a criminal color to the
civil proceedings, which has been ignored
by the concerned Court while taking
cognizance.

(v) The forensic handwriting
report from private person cannot be taken
as an authentic document relying upon
which charge sheet has been submitted.

(vi) The report of handwriting
expert is based on photo-copy of the
documents, hence, the same is not valid.

9. The discharge application was
rejected by order dated 07.10.2023 in an
illegal manner, without application of
judicial mind, ignoring two aspects, (i) that
the charge sheet has been submitted on the
basis of defective investigation as the
report of Private Forensic Expert based on
photo-copy of the documents has been
taken into consideration, (ii) there being
two reports on record, and supplementary
report
has
not
been
taken
into
consideration, hence, the same is liable to
be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
relying upon the judgements of High
Courts
passed
in
cases
of
Bheri
Nageswara Rao vs. Mavuri Veerbhadra
Rao & Ors., 2006 SCC Online AP 330
and Abhay Jain and Others vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another, 2018
SCC Online MP 1839, submits that law is
clear that the opinion of handwriting expert
is relevant but not conclusive. It is a fragile
type
of
evidence
and
it
is
only
corroborative evidence. It's probative value
is that only on the basis of expert opinion
no conclusion can be drawn if there is no
other supportive evidence. It is to be
accepted
with
good
amount
of
circumspection. Thus, without analyzing
that the expert report was not based on
verification from original documents, the
charge sheet has been submitted and Court
concerned has ignored the aforesaid fact.

11. After further investigation,
supplementary report was not taken into
consideration, hence, the impugned order
rejecting the discharge application without
considering the aforesaid is bad in the eyes
of law. It is settled position that when there
are two reports, both have to be read
conjointly and it is cumulative efforts of the
reports and documents annexed thereto
which the Court is expected to apply its
mind to determine whether there exist
ground to presume that the appellant has
committed offence or not. Hence, after
considering both the reports, the Court shall
decide the discharge application of the
alleged accused in compliance of the
provision of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. In
support of his submission he has relied
upon the judgement of Apex Court passed
in case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali
Alias Deepak And Others, (2013) 5 SCC
762.

12. Per contra learned AGA has
opposed the contention raised by learned
counsel for the appellant by submitting that
in the impugned order itself it has been
mentioned that documents placed with the
discharge application are to be seen at the
time of evidence. From perusal of the
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
records, prima facie it cannot be said that at
this stage no offence has been committed
by the appellant.

13.

Before
appreciating
the
contentions as raised by learned counsel for
the parties, it will be appropriate to refer
the position of law with respect to the
scope of exercise of power under Section
227 of Cr.P.C.:-

"227.
Discharge.-If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and
after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for
so doing."

14. From bare reading of Section 227
of Cr.P.C., the meaning of the expression
"the record of the case and documents
submitted therewith" is clear and there
cannot be any doubt with respect to the
position that at the stage of consideration of
such an application for discharge, defence
case or material, if produced at all by the
accused, cannot be looked at all. Once "the
record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith" are before the Court
they alone can be looked into for
considering the application for discharge
and thereafter if it considers that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused concerned then he shall be
discharged after recording reasons therefor.
The aforesaid has been held in the case of
State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,
2005 (1) SCC 568.

15. The words "not sufficient ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused"
appearing in Section 227, Cr.PC, postulate
exercise of judicial mind on the part of the
Judge to the facts of the case revealed from
the materials brought on record by the
prosecution in order to determine whether a
case for trial has been made out. Thus, at
the stage of consideration of an application
for discharge, the Court has to proceed with
an assumption that the materials brought on
record by the prosecution are true, and
evaluate the materials to find out whether
the facts taken at their face value disclose
the existence of the ingredients constituting
the offence. At this stage, only the
probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to
go deep into the matter to hold a mini-trial.

16. The Apex Court in the case of BK
Sharma v. State of UP, 1987 SCC Online
ALD 314, has held that the standard of test
and judgement which is finally applied
before recording a finding of conviction
against an accused is not to be applied at
the stage of framing the charge. It is just a
very strong suspicion, based on the material
on record, and would be sufficient to frame
a charge.

17. Thus, in the opinion of this Court,
strong suspicion, in order to be sufficient to
frame a charge should be based on the
material
brought
on
record
by
the
prosecution and should not be based on
supposition, suspicions and conjectures.

18. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala
and Anr., after extracting Section 227,
Cr.PC, the Court in paragraph No.10 and
11 held thus: -

"10. If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375
the accused and at this stage he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused"
clearly show that the Judge is not a mere
post office to frame the charge at the behest
of the prosecution, but has to exercise his
judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for
the court to enter into the pros and cons of
the matter or into a weighing and balancing
of evidence and probabilities which is
really the function of the court, after the
trial starts.

11. At the stage of Section 227, the
Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. In other words, the sufficiency of
ground would take within its fold the nature
of the evidence recorded by the police or
the documents produced before the court
which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious
circumstances
against
the
accused so as to frame a charge against
him."

19. In paragraph 13 in P. Vijayan's
case (supra), this Court took note of the
principles enunciated earlier by this Court
in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal which reads thus: -

"10....

(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."

20. From the aforesaid decisions, it is,
thus, obvious that it will be within the
jurisdiction of the Court concerned to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused
concerned has been made out.

21. Be that as it may, though it is
permissible to sift and weigh the materials
for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case is made
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
out against the accused, on appreciation of
the admissibility and the evidentiary value
such materials brought on record by the
prosecution is impermissible as it would
amount to denial of opportunity to the
prosecution to prove them appropriately at
the appropriate stage besides amounting to
exercise of the power coupled with
obligation under Section 232, Cr.PC,
available only after taking the evidence for
the prosecution and examining the accused.

22. 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 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty
and obligation of the Court to apply its mind
and answer to it regarding the existence 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.

23. In case of Ram Prakash Chadha
(supra), the Apex Court has held that while
considering the discharge application, it is
just a very strong suspicion, based on the
material on record and it is sufficient to
frame a charge.

24. As regards the submission of
learned counsel for the applicant regarding
non consideration of supplementary report
dated 25.05.2016, Parcha No.7, annexed as
Annexure-13, while passing the order
impugned, this Court finds that nothing has
been placed on record to show that the
aforesaid supplementary charge sheet dated
25.05.2016
was
placed
before
the
concerned Court nor any such specific
ground has been taken in the discharge
application.

25.

Perusal
of
the
discharge
application goes to show that all the
grounds as taken by learned counsel for the
applicant have been dealt with by the
concerned Court while rejecting the same,
thus, there is no illegality in the order
impugned.

26. Be that as it may, all the grounds
as taken in the discharge application can be
examined at any/appropriate stage of trial
and this Court while exercising inherent
powers cannot go to conduct mini trial.

27. The second supplementary report
dated 25.05.2016 is of no relevance and
this Court is of the opinion that, even if it is
presumed that supplementary report dated
25.05.2016 has not been considered by the
concerned
Court
while
rejecting
the
discharge application, there can be no
illegality in the order as the second
supplementary report has been submitted
by the Investigating Officer on the basis of
signature being verified by photocopy of
the documents, which has been the position
in the first report as placed before the
Court. In other words, the second report is
of no value when the same has been
prepared after verification from photocopy
of the documents as is the case wherein
first signature verification report has been
placed on the basis of photocopy of the
documents.
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377

28. Even otherwise, learned counsel
for the applicant has not been able to make
out the case as to what was the illegality in
the first report except the fact that it is by a
Private Forensic Laboratory (which as per
record is recognized by the Government),
when the same has been placed by
verifying from photocopy of the documents
as is the position of the second report.
Thus, in such circumstances which report
has to be relied upon and how the same is
going to effect the applicant is subject
matter to be considered and examined at
appropriate stage.

29. To sum up, reliability is to be
placed on first report, which has been first
forensic verification report as the second
one has not been placed before the
concerned Court and is also based on
verification
from
photocopy
of
the
documents and has not been verified by the
original signatures or documents.

30. The Court in the case of Sheoroj
Singh Ahlawat vs. State of U.P., 2013
(11) SCC 476, has held that if two views
are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion,
the
trial
Judge
will
be
empowered to discharge the accused
irrespective of result of the trial. It has been
further held that at the time of framing of
charge the Court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record to decide
whether there is a ground for presuming
that the accused had committed the offence.
There is no need to evaluate the sufficiency
of evidence to convict the accused.
Materials brought on record by the
prosecution can be believed to be true, but
their probative value cannot be decided at
that stage. The accused is entitled to urge
his contentions while entertaining the
discharge application only on the material
submitted by the prosecution, but he is not
entitled to produce any material at that
stage and the court is not required to
consider any such material.

31. In the present case, both the
signature verification reports are based on
photocopy of the documents, thus, there is
no chance of any suspicion and as to which
report has to be considered, is to be seen at
the time of trial at the appropriate stage
when the aforesaid report is placed before
the trial Court.

32. In the present facts of the case, the
Court has applied its mind and on the basis
of necessary material collected during the
course of investigation and as placed before
the Court concerned, has proceeded to pass
the order impugned, hence, there is no
illegality in the aforesaid.

33. Before proceeding to adjudge the
validity of the impugned order, in opinion
of this Court, it would be useful to cast a
fleeting
glance
to
some
of
the
representative cases decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which have expatiated upon
the legal approach to be adopted at the time
of framing of the charge or at the time of
deciding whether the accused ought to be
discharged. It shall be advantageous to
refer to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 (4) SCC 39
which are as follows :-

"4. Under S. 226 of the Code
while opening the case for the prosecution
the prosecutor has got to describe the
charge against the accused and State by
what evidence he proposes to prove the
guilt of the accused. Thereafter, comes at
the initial stage, the duty of the Court to
consider the record of the case and the
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documents submitted therewith and to hear
the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in that behalf. The Judge has to
pass thereafter an order either u/s. 227 or
u/s. 228 of the Code. If "the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing", so enjoined by s.
227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
which ?...................................

(b) in exclusively triable by the
court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused," as provided in S. 228.

Reading
the
two
provisions
together in juxtaposition, as they have got
to be, it would be clear that at the
beginning and the initial stage of the trial
the truth, veracity and effect of the
evidence which the prosecutor proposes to
adduce are not to be meticulously judged.
Nor is any weight to be attached to the
probable defence of the accused. It is not
obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the
trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if
proved, would be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or not. The
standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the
accused is not exactly to be applied at this
stage of deciding the matter under s. 227 and
228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not
to see whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction of the accused or whether the trial
is sure to end in his conviction. Strong
suspicion against the accused, if the matter
remains in the region of suspicion, cannot
take the place of proof of his guilt at the
conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage
if there is a strong suspicion which leads the
court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the court to say
that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding
against
the
accused.
The
presumption of the guilt of the accused which
is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the
sense of the law governing the trial of
criminal cases in France where the accused is
presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is
proved. But it is only for the purpose of
deciding prima facie whether the court should
proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence
which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to
prove the guilt of the accused even if fully
accepted before it is challenged in crossexamination or rebutted by the defence, if
any, cannot show that the accused committed
the offence, there will be no sufficient ground
for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive
list of the circumstances to indicate as to what
will lead to one conclusion or the other is
neither possible nor advisable. We may just
illustrate the difference of the law by one
more example. If the scales of pan as to the
guilt or innocence of the accused are
something like even at the conclusion of the
trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt
the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on
the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of
making an order under S. 227 or S. 228, then
in such a situation ordinarily and generally
the order which will have to be made will be
one under S. 228 and not under S. 227."

34. Aforesaid case was again referred
to in another Apex Court's decision
Superintendent and Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs, West Bengal Versus Anil
Kumar Bhunja AIR 1980 (SC) 52 and the
Apex Court proceeded to observe as
follows:-

"18. It may be remembered that
the case was at the stage of framing
charges; the prosecution evidence had not
9 All. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
yet commenced. The Magistrate had,
therefore, to consider the above question on
a general consideration of the materials
placed before him by the investigating
police officer. At this stage, as was pointed
out by this Court in State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, the
truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce
are not to be meticulously judged. The
standard of test, proof and judgment which
is to be applied finally before finding the
accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly
to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or
228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. At this stage, even a very strong
suspicion founded upon materials before
the Magistrate, which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of
the factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged; may justify the framing of
charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence."

35. In yet another case of Palwinder
Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh reported in
AIR 2009 SC 887, the Apex Court had the
occasion to reflect upon the scope of
adjudication and its ambit at the time of
framing of the charge and also about the
scope to consider the material produced by
the accused at that stage. Following extract
may be profitably quoted to clarify the
situation:-

"12.
Having
heard
learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the
opinion that the High Court committed a
serious error in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it entered into the
realm of appreciation of evidence at the
stage of the framing of the charges itself.
The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions
Judge while exercising power under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is limited. Charges can be
framed also on the basis of strong
suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of
evidence is not in the domain of the Court
at that point of time. This aspect of the
matter has been considered by this Court in
state of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it was held as
under :

"23. As a result of the aforesaid
discussion, in our view, clearly the law is
that at the time of framing charge or taking
cognizance the accused has no right to
produce any material. Satish Mehra's Case
holding that the trial Court has powers to
consider even materials which the accused
may produce at the stage of Section 227 of
the Code has not been correctly decided."

36. The following observations made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Sanjay Choudhary reported in AIR
(2009) SC 9 also reiterated the same
position of law :-

"10.
After
analyzing
the
terminology used in the three pairs of
sections it was held that despite the
differences there is no scope for doubt that
at the stage at which the Court is required
to consider the question of framing of
charge, the test of a prima facie case to be
applied.

11. The present case is not one
where the High Court ought to have
interfered with the order of framing the
charge. As rightly submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant, 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. At that stage, there is no
necessity of formulating the opinion about
the prospect of conviction. That being so,
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the impugned order of the High Court
cannot be sustained and is set aside. The
appeal is allowed."

37. Lastly, at the stage of discharge
and/or while exercising the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very
limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider "whether any sufficient materials
is available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required
to be tried or not".

38. In any case, at this stage, what is
required to be considered is a prima facie
case and the material collected during the
course of the investigation, which warranted
the accused to be tried. The same has been
held in the case of CBI v. Aryan Singh etc.,
2023 SCC Online SC 379. It has also been
held in the aforesaid case that as per the
cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial.

39. In fact, while exercising the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
while wielding the powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India the quashing of
the complaint or charge sheet can be done
only if it does not disclose any offence or if
there is any legal bar which prohibits the
proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court
decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.)
426 make the position of law in this regard
clear recognizing certain categories by way of
illustration which may justify the quashing of
a complaint or charge sheet.

40. The submissions made by the
learned counsel for the applicants counsel
call for adjudication on pure questions of
fact
which
may
be
adequately
adjudicated upon only by the trial court
and while doing so even the submissions
made on points of law can also be more
appropriately gone into by the trial court
in this case. This Court does not deem it
proper,
and
therefore
cannot
be
persuaded to have a pre-trial before the
actual
trial
begins.
A
threadbare
discussion
of
various
facts
and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause
any prejudice to either side during trial.
But it shall suffice to observe that the
perusal of the F.I.R.