# Gaurav @ Govind Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2660 of 2022
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaurav-govind-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49006
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 154, 174 & 154 Cr.P.C
deals with information in cognizable
offence for lodging F.I.R. Section 154
Cr.P.C. which stipulates that there must
be
an
information
relating
to
the
commission of cognizable offence and the
information can be termed as F.I.R., there
9 All. Gaurav @ Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
is particular condition in respect of F.I.R.
that
there
must
be
information
of
cognizable
offence.
When
the
Portal/Pointsman,
Mukesh
Kumar,
Railway Authority, informed the Police
regarding lying of a dead body near
railwayline,
it
does
not
disclose
commission of any cognizable offence.
Therefore, the said information entered in
G.D. cannot termed as F.I.R. The inquest
was conducted in terms of Section 174
Cr.P.C. and police had rightly chosen not
to lodge any F.I.R. on such information.
The scrutiny done under Section 174
Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the
information under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
which is meant for cognizable offence.
Inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is more
distinct.The inquest proceedings are in the
nature of inquiry in case of accident which
is entirely distincts from investigation
under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

Merely an information to the police without any
complaint, accusation or information about
commission of an offence, cannot be termed as
F.I.R. and the consequent inquest proceedings
cannot be termed as investigation within the
meaning of Section 157 Cr.P.C as the purpose of
the inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
only for the limited purpose of discovering the
cause of death.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 228- While framing the charge,
the court below has to consider prima
facie case even if the Court thinks that the
accused
might
have
committed
the
offence it would frame the charge at the
stage of framing of charge and probative
value of materials on record, cannot be
gone into.

Settled law that at the stage of framing the
Charge the Court is required to see only as to
whether a prima facie case is made out from the
material collected during the investigation but
the probative value of said material cannot be
gone into at this stage. (Para 10, 11, 13, 15,
18, 19)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)
Judgements/Case law relied upon:-

## Text

276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
object and justification. The prevention of
breach of public peace, the existence of
dispute is likely ot cause breach of peace is
a condition laying at the root of the power
conferred.

26. Putting all these orders in the line,
this Court has regrettably deprecate the
conduct of the concerned Additional City
Magistrate,Agra and warns to act fairly in
future, and quashed his order dated
31.05.2022 and expunge the orders of
S.H.O., dated 26.04.2022 and 04.06.2022
(rejecting the application to recall his order
dated 31.05.2022).

27. I.G., Agra Range/ SSP, Agra is
directed that

(i) to hold indepth inquiry into the
matter within 15 days from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before them and take a suitable disciplinary
action against the present S.H.O., P.S.
Tajganj, Agra, and all other concerned SubInspectors who involve in this scam, who
have illegally handed over the keys of the
shop in question to the opposite party nos.
3 and 4 after playing partisan role.

(ii) After quashing all the three
orders as mentioned above, S.S.P., Agra is
directed to ensure that the shop in question
no. 15/77A M.P.Pura, Fatehabad Road,
Tajganj, Agra should be immediately taken
a vacant actual physical possession from
the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 and shall
put a lock and key after sealing the
property latest by 10.09.2022 positively.

(iii) Circle Officer, Tajganj, Agra
shall give a recent report after assessing the
peace and tranquillity, the justification and
the exigency of imposing Section 145/146
Cr.P.C.in the nearby area on account of
seizure of the property and furnish the
aforesaid report to the new City Magistrate
dealing with the issue.

(iv) District Magistrate, Agra is
requested to confer the records of the case
to some other City Magistrate to re-visit
and re-decide the entire issue after taking
into account the settled principles of law in
this regard within next two months after
hearing both the parties, in the light of
settled principles of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.

28. With this observation, the present
criminal revision stands ALLOWED with
the aforesaid conditions.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 276
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2660 of 2022

Gaurav @ Govind ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri
Raghawendra
Kumar
Singh,
Sri
Yogendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 154, 174 & 154 Cr.P.C
deals with information in cognizable
offence for lodging F.I.R. Section 154
Cr.P.C. which stipulates that there must
be
an
information
relating
to
the
commission of cognizable offence and the
information can be termed as F.I.R., there
9 All. Gaurav @ Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
is particular condition in respect of F.I.R.
that
there
must
be
information
of
cognizable
offence.
When
the
Portal/Pointsman,
Mukesh
Kumar,
Railway Authority, informed the Police
regarding lying of a dead body near
railwayline,
it
does
not
disclose
commission of any cognizable offence.
Therefore, the said information entered in
G.D. cannot termed as F.I.R. The inquest
was conducted in terms of Section 174
Cr.P.C. and police had rightly chosen not
to lodge any F.I.R. on such information.
The scrutiny done under Section 174
Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the
information under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
which is meant for cognizable offence.
Inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is more
distinct.The inquest proceedings are in the
nature of inquiry in case of accident which
is entirely distincts from investigation
under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

Merely an information to the police without any
complaint, accusation or information about
commission of an offence, cannot be termed as
F.I.R. and the consequent inquest proceedings
cannot be termed as investigation within the
meaning of Section 157 Cr.P.C as the purpose of
the inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
only for the limited purpose of discovering the
cause of death.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 228- While framing the charge,
the court below has to consider prima
facie case even if the Court thinks that the
accused
might
have
committed
the
offence it would frame the charge at the
stage of framing of charge and probative
value of materials on record, cannot be
gone into.

Settled law that at the stage of framing the
Charge the Court is required to see only as to
whether a prima facie case is made out from the
material collected during the investigation but
the probative value of said material cannot be
gone into at this stage. (Para 10, 11, 13, 15,
18, 19)

Criminal Revision rejected. (E-3)
Judgements/Case law relied upon:-

1. Manohari Vs The District Suptd. of Police,
2018 (2) LW (Cri) 522 ( cited)

2. Rhea Chakraborty Vs St. of Bih. & ors., 2020
(0) SC 490 ( cited)

3. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & ors. Vs
St. of U.P. ,2006 (2) SCC 450 ( cited)

4. Patai alias Krishna Kumar Vs St. of U.P.,
(2010) 4 SCC 429

5. Manoj Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs St. of
Chhattis. & anr., (2016) 9 SCC 1

6. St. of Maha. & ors. Vs Som Nath Thapa &
ors., (1996) 4 SCC 659

7. Bhawna Bai Vs Ghanshyam & ors., (2020) 2
SCC 217

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

The present revision has been
preferred with a prayer to allow this
revision and quash/set aside the order dated
26.04.2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-14, Aligarh in Sessions
Trial No.942 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs.
Gaurav @ Govind) arising out of Case
Crime No.74 of 2021, under Section 302
I.P.C., Police Station Aligarh Junction,
District Aligarh.

2. Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh Kumar
and Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Hathras Railway Station were informed on
26.10.2021 about unidentified dead body
laid down near platform no.2, up line to the
out post of the G.R.P. Hathras Junction.
The inquest was conducted on the body of
the
deceased
on
26.10.2021
and
Panchnama was prepared and thereafter the
postmortem
was
also
conducted
on
26.10.2021, which indicates that the
deceased
died
due
to
shock
and
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
haemorrhage as a result of antemortem
injury.

3. The family members of the
deceased
reached
at
the
place
of
occurrence, where inquest was prepared by
the concerned police station. The report
was registered under Section 174(1) of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure.
After
conducting Panchnama, postmortem report
and detailed accident report were submitted
on 26.10.2021. The brother of deceased,
lodged a report on 28.10.2021 mentioning
therein that he had come to Aligarh on
28.10.2021 to take postmortem report and
while he was sitting in waiting room of
Aligarh Railway Station, he heard from one
Omjeet @ Chhotu, son of Kishori Lal that
he was sitting in General Bogie of
Unchahar Express from Fafund Railway
Station on 25.10.2021, which was going to
Chandigarh, one Gaurav @ Govind, a
Mechanic of Bike met him in the train,
after sometime, there was quarrel at
Hathras Railway Station between a boy
(deceased) and Gaurav and the boy was
thrown from the train by accused.

4. The first information report was
lodged on 28.10.2021, under Section 302
I.P.C. at G.R.P. Aligarh Junction, Aligarh.
The investigation was conducted and
statement of complainant as well as other
witnesses was recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and charge sheet was filed against
the applicant on 20.12.2021 before the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Aligarh, under Section 302 I.P.C. The
cognizance was taken and charges were
framed.

5. The applicant has challenged the
charge sheet dated 26.04.2022, framed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge-14,
Aligarh.

6. It has been submitted by Sri
Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the
revisionist that there are two F.I.Rs. in the
present case and two investigations were
carried out by the Police but no police
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has
been submitted before Chief Judicial
Magistrate with respect to the information
and the charges have been framed in
pursuance of the second F.I.R., which is not
legally sustainable. He has submitted that
for the same cause of action, it is the
second
F.I.R.,
therefore,
proceeding
initiated for framing the charge dated
26.04.2022 by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Aligarh, is bad in the eyes
of law and according to his submission
investigation of second F.I.R. is bad in the
eyes of law, whereas, the first report should
be taken into consideration. He has further
submitted that the materials collected under
Section 302 I.P.C. against the applicant, is
based on hearsay witness. He has relied
upon the judgment passed by High Court of
Madras (Madurai Bench) in the case of
Manohari
Vs.
The
District
Superintendent of Police reported in
2018
(2)
LW
(Cri)
522,
Rhea
Chakraborty Vs. State of Bihar and
others reported in 2020 (0) SC 490 and
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and
others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2006
(2) SCC 450.

7. On the other hand, Sri Rupak
Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party has opposed and submitted
that there is only one F.I.R., which was
registered on 28.10.2021, as Case Crime
No.74 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C.,
Police Station G.R.P. Aligarh Junctiion,
District Aligarh. The information tendered
by Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh Kumar and
police authority dated 26.10.2021 that an
unknown dead body was lying near railway
9 All. Gaurav @ Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
279
line, cannot be termed as F.I.R. and
therefore, the police authority has rightly
chosen not to lodge the F.I.R. upon
receiving such information. He has further
submitted that the preparation of inquest
report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding
the
death
of
deceased,
postmortem
examination and detailed accident report
were, in fact, in the nature of inquiry and it
cannot be equated with the investigation
contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.
which commenced after lodging of F.I.R.
under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Moreover, this
aspect cannot be considered when the trial
has been commenced and charges have
been framed and trial court bring the
evidence on the basis of material on record.
There is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence and the
Court framed the charge even strong
suspension based on material on record.

8. Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned
A.G.A. has further submitted that there is
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
witness, namely, Omjeet @ Chhotu, who
had stated that he himself had witnessed the
incident, wherein, it is mentioned that the
revisionist had pushed out the deceased
from
running
train
which
resulted
homicidal death of the deceased. The
statement of other witnesses recorded in the
investigation also support this allegation.

9. Heard Sri Yogendra Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rupak
Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party.

10. Section 154 Cr.P.C. deals with
information in cognizable offence for
lodging F.I.R. Section 154 Cr.P.C. which
stipulates that there must be an information
relating to the commission of cognizable
offence and the information can be termed
as F.I.R., there is particular condition in
respect of F.I.R. that there must be
information of cognizable offence. When
the Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh Kumar,
Railway Authority, informed the Police
regarding lying of a dead body near
railwayline,
it
does
not
disclose
commission of any cognizable offence.
Therefore, the said information entered in
G.D. cannot termed as F.I.R. The inquest
was conducted in terms of Section 174
Cr.P.C. and police had rightly chosen not to
lodge any F.I.R. on such information. The
said view is enunciated in the Judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Patai alias Krishna Kumar Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010)
4 SCC 429. Paragraph No.16 of the said
judgment is relevant and is quoted below:-

"16. In order for a message or
omunication to be qualified to be a first
information
report,
there
must
be
something in the nature of a complaint or
accusation or at least some information of
the crime given with the object of settting
the police or criminal law into motion. It is
true that a first information report need not
contain the minutest details as to how the
offence had taken place nor it is required to
contain the names of the offenders or the
witnesses. But it must at least contain some
information about the crime committed as
also some information about the manner in
which the cognizable offence has been
committed. A cryptic message recording an
occurrence cannot be termed as a first
information report."

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the proceeding under Section 174
Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of discovering
the cause of death, and the evidence taken
was very short. When the body cannot be
found or has been buried, there can be no
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
The scrutiny done under Section 174
Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with the
information under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
which is meant for cognizable offence.
Inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is more
distinct.

12. The case of inquiry under Section
174 and 154 is considered in case of
Manoj Kumar Sharma and others Vs.
State
of
Chhattisgarh
and
another
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1. Paragraph
nos.19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment
are relevant, which are quoted below:-

"19.
The
proceedings
under
Section 174 have a very limited scope. The
object of the proceedings is merely to
ascertain whether a person has died under
suspicious circumstances or an unnatural
death and if so what is the apparent cause
of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under
what circumstances he was assaulted is
foreign to the ambit and scope of the
proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.
Neither in practice nor in law was it
necessary for the police to mention those
details in the inquest report. It is, therefore,
not necessary to enter all the details of the
overt acts in the inquest report. The
procedure under Section 174 is for the
purpose of discovering the cause of death,
and the evidence taken was very short.
When the body cannot be found or has been
buried, there can be no investigation under
Section 174. This section is intended to
apply to cases in which an inquest is
necessary. The proceedings under this
section should be kept more distinct from
the proceedings taken on the complaint.
Whereas the starting point of the powers of
the police was changed from the power of
the officer in charge of a police station to
investigate into a cognizable offence
without the order of a Magistrate, to the
reduction of the first information regarding
commission of a cognizable offence,
whether received orally or in writing, into
writing. As such, the objective of such
placement of provisions was clear which
was to ensure that the recording of the first
information should be the starting point of
any investigation by the police. The
purpose of registering FIR is to set the
machinery of criminal investigation into
motion, which culminates with filing of the
police report and only after registration of
FIR, beginning of investigation in a case,
collection of evidence during investigation
and formation of the final opinion is the
sequence which results in filing of a report
under Section 173 of the Code. In George
v. State of Kerala, it has been held that the
investigating officer is not obliged to
investigate, at the stage of inquest, or to
ascertain as to who were the assailants. A
similar view has been taken in Suresh Rai
v. State of Bihar .

20. In this view of the matter,
Sections 174 and 175 of the Code afford a
complete Code in itself for the purpose of
"inquiries" in cases of accidental or
suspicious deaths and are entirely distinct
from the "investigation" under Section 157
of the Code wherein if an officer in charge
of a police station has reason to suspect the
commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate, he shall proceed
in person to the spot to investigate the facts
and circumstances of the case. In the case
on hand, an inquiry under Section 174 of
the Code was convened initially in order to
ascertain whether the death is natural or
unnatural. The learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants claims that the earlier
information regarding unnatural death
9 All. Gaurav @ Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
281
amounted to FIR under Section 154 of the
Code which was investigated by the police
and thereafter the case was closed.

21. On a careful scrutiny of
materials on record, the inquiry which was
conducted for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the death is natural or unnatural
cannot be categorised under information
relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence within the meaning and import of
Section 154 of the Code. On information
received by Police Station Mulana, the
police made an inquiry as contemplated
under Section 174 of the Code. After
holding an inquiry, the police submitted its
report
before
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that it
was a case of hanging and no cognizable
offence is found to have been committed. In
the report, it was also mentioned that the
father of the deceased, R.P. Sharma (PW 1)
does not want to take any further action in
the matter. In view of the above discussion,
it clearly goes to show that what was
undertaken by the police was an inquiry
under Section 174 of the Code which was
limited to the extent of natural or unnatural
death and the case was closed. Whereas,
the condition precedent for recording of
FIR is that there must be an information
and that information must disclose a
cognizable offence and in the case on hand,
it leaves no matter of doubt that the
intimation was an information of the nature
contemplated under Section 174 of the
Code and it could not be categorised as
information
disclosing
a
cognizable
offence. Also, there is no material to show
that
the
police
after
conducting
investigation submitted a report under
Section 173 of the Code as contemplated,
before the competent authority, which
accepted the said report and closed the
case.

22. In view of the above, we are
of the opinion that the investigation on an
inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
distinct
from
the
investigation
as
contemplated under Section 154 of the
Code
relating
to
commission
of
a
cognizable offence and in the case on hand
there was no FIR registered with Police
Station Mulana neither any investigation
nor any report under Section 173 of the
Code was submitted. Therefore, challenge
to the impugned FIR under Crime No. 194
of 2005 registered by Police Station Bhilai
Nagar could not be assailed on the ground
that it was the second FIR in the garb of
which investigation or fresh investigation
of the same incident was initiated."

13. Section 2 (H) Cr.P.C. includes all
the proceedings under the Code for
collection of evidence by a Police Officer
or by any person other than the Magistrate,
who is authorised by the Magistrate.
Section
157
Cr.P.C.
prescribed
the
procedure for investigation. Section 174
deals with the inquest proceeding upon
receiving information by the police that a
person has committed suicide or has been
killed in an accident or has died under
circumstances raising suspicion that some
other person has done some offence. The
body of inquest proceeding is to ascertain
the apparent cause of death. The inquest
proceedings are in the nature of inquiry in
case of accident which is entirely distincts
from investigation under Section 157
Cr.P.C. Under Section 157 Cr.P.C., the
Officer in Charge of a Police Station
having reason to suspect the commission of
an offence for which he is empowered to
investigate, proceeds on the spot. The
investigation is done by the Police after
receiving information of a cognizable
offence and investigation can be done only
under Section 157 Cr.P.C. which results in
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission of police report. However,
during the inquest proceeding, the Police
Officer finds commission of cognizable
offence then he can lodge F.I.R. and can
investigate further in terms of Section 157
Cr.P.C.

14.
In
the present
case,
the
information for cognizable offence was
given by the informant on 28.10.2021 and
thereafter, the police started investigation
because act of commission of murder was
disclosed in the F.I.R.

15. Insofar as the charge is concerned,
it is framed after submission of charge
sheet which contains the F.I.R. and
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the
cognizable offence is made out and charges
have been framed on the basis of the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer. While framing the charge, the
court below has to consider prima facie
case even if the Court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence
it would frame the charge at the stage of
framing of charge and probative value of
materials on record, cannot be gone into.
Paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra and others
Vs. Som Nath Thapa and others reported
in (1996) 4 SCC 659, are relevant which
are quoted below:-

"26. Shri Ram Jethmalani has
urged that despite some variation in the
language of the three pairs of sections,
which deal with the question of framing of
charge or discharge, being relatable to
either a sessions trial or trial of a warrant
case or a summons case, ultimately
converge to a single conclusion, namely,
that a prima facie case must be made out
before a charge can be framed. This is
what was stated by a two-Judge Bench in
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay.

27. Let us note the three pairs of
sections Shri Jethmalani has in mind. These
are Sections 227 and 228 insofar as
sessions trial is concerned; Sections 239
and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases;
and Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of
summons cases. They read as below:

"227.
Discharge.--If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therein, 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.

228. Framing of charge.--(1) If,
after such consideration and hearing as
aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence which--

(a) is not exclusively triable by
the Court of Session, he may frame a
charge against the accused and, by order,
transfer the case for trial to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the
Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the
offence in accordance with the procedure
for trial of warrant-cases instituted on a
police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the
court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any
charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1),
the charge shall be read and explained to
9 All. Gaurav @ Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
283
the accused and the accused shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty of the offence
charged or claims to be tried.

239. When accused shall be
discharged.--If,
upon
considering
the
police report and the document sent with it
under Section 173 and making such
examination, if any, of the accused as the
Magistrate thinks necessary and after
giving the prosecution and the accused an
opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to
be groundless, he shall discharge the
accused, and record his reasons for so
doing.

240. Framing of charge.--(1) If,
upon such consideration, examination, if
any, and hearing the Magistrate is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
triable under this Chapter, which such
Magistrate is competent to try and which,
in his opinion, could be adequately
punished by him, he shall frame in writing
a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and
explained to the accused, and he shall be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the
offence charged or claims to be tried.

245. When accused shall be
discharged.--If,
upon
taking
all
the
evidence referred to in Section 244, the
Magistrate considers, for reasons to be
recorded, that no case against the accused
has been made out which, if unrebutted,
would
warrant
his
conviction,
the
Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from
discharging the accused at any previous
stage of the case if, for reasons to be
recorded by such Magistrate, he considers
the charge to be groundless."

28. Before adverting to what was
stated in Antulay case let the view
expressed in State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy
be
noted.
Therein,
Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) speaking
for a three-Judge Bench stated (at SCR p.
119 : SCC p. 704) that at the stage of
framing the charge the court has to apply
its mind to the question whether or not
there is any ground for presuming the
commission of the offence by the accused.
As framing of charge affects a person's
liberty substantially, need for proper
consideration of material warranting such
order was emphasised.

29. What was stated in this
regard in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad
case which was quoted with approval in
paragraph 78 of State of W.B. v. Mohd.
Khalid is that what the court has to see,
while considering the question of framing
the charge, is whether the material brought
on record would reasonably connect the
accused with the crime. No more is
required to be inquired into.

30. In Antulay case Bhagwati,
C.J., opined, after noting the difference in
the language of the three pairs of sections,
that despite the difference 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 "prima facie"
case has to be applied. According to Shri
Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said
to have been made out when the evidence,
unless rebutted, would make the accused
liable to conviction. In our view, a better
and clearer statement of law would be that
if there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed the offence, a court
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can justifiably say that a prima facie case
against him exists, and so, frame a charge
against him for committing that offence.

31. Let us note the meaning of the
word ''presume'. In Black's Law Dictionary it
has been defined to mean "to believe or
accept upon probable evidence". (emphasis
ours). In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
it has been mentioned that in law ''presume'
means "to take as proved until evidence to the
contrary is forthcoming", Stroud's Legal
Dictionary has quoted in this context a
certain judgment according to which "A
presumption is a probable consequence
drawn from facts (either certain, or proved
by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact
alleged." (emphasis supplied). In Law
Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same
quotation finds place at p. 1007 of 1987 Edn.

32. The aforesaid shows that if
on the basis of materials on record, a
court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the court
were to think that the accused might have
committed the offence it can frame the
charge,
though
for
conviction
the
conclusion is required to be that the
accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of a
charge, probative value of the materials
on record cannot be gone into; the
materials brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at
that stage."

16. The same view has been taken by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217. Paragraph
nos.16 and 17 of the said judgment are
relevant and are quoted below:-

"16. After referring to Amit
Kapoor in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P.,
the Supreme Court held that for framing
charge under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge
is not required to record detailed reasons
as to why such charge is framed. On
perusal of record and hearing of parties, if
the Judge is of the opinion that there is
sufficient ground for presuming that the
accused has committed the offence triable
by the Court of Session, he shall frame the
charge against the accused for such
offence.

17. As discussed above, in the
present case, upon hearing the parties and
considering the allegations in the chargesheet, the learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge was of the opinion that
there were sufficient grounds for presuming
that the accused has committed the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC. The order dated 1212-2018 framing the charges is not a
detailed order. For framing the charges
under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not
required to record detailed reasons. As
pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing
the charge, the court is not required to hold
an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case
is to be seen. As held in Kanti Bhadra Shah
v. State of W.B., while exercising power
under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not
required to record his reasons for framing
the charges against the accused. Upon
hearing the parties and based upon the
allegations
and
taking
note
of
the
allegations in the charge-sheet, the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge was
satisfied that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused and framed
the
charges
against
the
accusedRespondents 1 and 2. While so, the High
Court was not right in interfering with the
order of the trial court framing the charges
9 All. Rajdhari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
285
against the accused-Respondents 1 and 2
under Section 302 IPC read with Section
34 IPC and the High Court, in our view,
erred in quashing the charges framed
against the accused. The impugned order
cannot therefore be sustained and is liable
to be set aside"

17. Sri Yogendra Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied upon
the judgment of Manohari Vs. The
District Superintendent of Police (supra),
the said judgment is not applicable in the
present case. In the said case, the
information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was
given and the Court has observed that on
conclusion of the investigation, the police
shall file a final report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. only before the Jurisdictional
Magistrate and not before the Executive
Magistrate. This will apply in both cases,
where the final report is positive report or
is a closure report.

18. In the present case, there is only
one F.I.R. registered on 28.10.2021, as
Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Section
302 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Aligarh
Junction, District Aligarh. The earlier
information by Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh
Kumar to the Police dated 26.10.2021, was
an information regarding unknown dead
body lying near railway line which can be
termed as F.I.R. Preparation of inquest
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding death
of the deceased, postmortem examination
and detailed accident report was in fact in
the nature of inquiry and it cannot be
equated with the investigation contemplates
under
Section
157
Cr.P.C.
which
commenced after lodging of F.I.R. under
Section 154 Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is obvious that the F.I.R.
lodged on 28.10.2021 for offence which is
cognizable, therefore, investigation was
conducted under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The
first report dated 26.10.2021 was an
information tendered by Portal/Pointsman,
Mukesh Kumar, the railway authority
regarding an unknown dead body which
was lying near railway line and the same
cannot be termed as F.I.R. The preparation
of inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
regarding death of deceased, postmortem
examination and detailed accident report,
was in fact, in the nature of inquiry and it
cannot be equated with investigation
contemplated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

20. The charges have been framed
after collecting material on record and
court below had no option but to frame the
charge.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the revision lacks merit and it is
dismissed.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 285
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Revision No. 3607 of 2021

Rajdhari Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lal Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: