# Mohd. Haroon v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 483
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1558 of 2023
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-haroon-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49652
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 293 - Sections 227
& 239 - Discharge - Scope - Rejection of
discharge application by the Trial Court -
Interference,
how
far
warranted
-
Applicant is named in the FIR as well as in
the St.ment u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C. - Effect - Sajjan Kumar's principle
relied upon - At the time of framing of
charge, the Court has to look at all the
material placed before it and determine
whether a prima facie case is made out or
not - The court is not required to consider
the evidentiary value of the evidence as
any question of admissibility or reliability
of evidence is a matter of trial - Held,
there is prima facie evidence against the
applicant which only is to be seen. The
truthfulness of the allegations cannot be
seen and adjudicated at this stage - At the
stage of discharge/framing of charge, the
Court is merely required to shift the
evidence in order to find out whether or
not
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused. (Para 13,
26 and 27)
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 45,779. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
483
left free to examine the issue with reference
to the relevant Rules whether after
retirement they can proceed against the
petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet,
already issued, from the stage of inquiry.

21. In the result, this Writ Petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 30.06.2015 and 12.01.2016
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority respectively are
hereby quashed. The report of the Inquiry
Officer dated 15.06.2015 is also quashed.

22. The petitioner shall be treated to
have continued in service till the date of his
superannuation. He shall be paid his post
retiral benefits within two months next.
However, it will be open to the respondents
to
conclude
the
inquiry
proceedings
initiated against the petitioner from the
stage of seeking his reply to the chargesheet, provided it is permissible under the
law to continue disciplinary proceedings
against an ex-employee of the Corporation,
who superannuates pending proceedings. In
the eventuality, disciplinary proceedings
are taken afresh against the petitioner, post
retiral benefits shall not be paid until
conclusion
of
proceedings,
which
if
permissible
and
pursued
by
the
Corporation, shall be completed within a
period of not more than three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

23. Let this order be communicated to
the Managing Director, U.P. Ware Housing
Corporation, New Hyderabad, Lucknow by
the Registrar Compliance.

24. The original records produced
before the Court in sealed cover, which
have been opened and examined, are
directed to be placed in a sealed cover and
returned
to
the
employee
of
the
Corporation, who has produced them
before the Court.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 483
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1558 of 2023

Mohd. Haroon ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Deepak Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 293 - Sections 227
& 239 - Discharge - Scope - Rejection of
discharge application by the Trial Court -
Interference,
how
far
warranted
-
Applicant is named in the FIR as well as in
the St.ment u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C. - Effect - Sajjan Kumar's principle
relied upon - At the time of framing of
charge, the Court has to look at all the
material placed before it and determine
whether a prima facie case is made out or
not - The court is not required to consider
the evidentiary value of the evidence as
any question of admissibility or reliability
of evidence is a matter of trial - Held,
there is prima facie evidence against the
applicant which only is to be seen. The
truthfulness of the allegations cannot be
seen and adjudicated at this stage - At the
stage of discharge/framing of charge, the
Court is merely required to shift the
evidence in order to find out whether or
not
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused. (Para 13,
26 and 27)
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I.; (2010) 9 SCC 368
2. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander; (2012) 9
SCC 460
3. Asim Shariff Vs National Investigation
Agency; (2019) 7 SCC 148
4. Vikram Johar Vs St. of U. P.; 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 609
5. Bhawna Bai Vs Ghanshyam; (2020) 2 SCC
217
6. M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI; (2020) 2 SCC
768
7. St. of Raj. Vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap; 2021
SCC OnLine SC 314
8. St. of Raj. Vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap; 2021
SCC OnLine SC 314
9. St. of Orissa Vs Pratima Mohanty; 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1222
10. Hazrat Deen Vs St. of U.P. ; 2022 SCC
Online SC 1781
11. St. Through Deputy Superintendentof Police
Vs R. Soundirarasu; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150
12. Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar
Tiwari; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057
13. Kanchan Kumar Vs St. of Bihar; (2022) 9
SCC 577

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant- Mohd Haroon with the prayer to
quash / set-aside of rejection order of
Discharge Application dated 15.11.2022 in
Case No. 10417 of 2022 (State Vs. Mohd
Haroon) arising out of Case Crime No. 248
of 2022, under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D
and 509 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali,
District Hamirpur with a further prayer to
stay the further proceedings of the said case
pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), F.T.C. Crime against Women
Court, Hamirpur.

2. The facts as set out in the case are
that a first information report was lodged
on 19.08.2022 by the opposite party no.2
for an incident which took place from
25.07.2022 to 18.08.2022 which was
lodged as Case Crime No. 248 of 2022,
under Sections 354 (Ga), 354 (Gha) I.P.C.,
Police Station- Kotwali, District Hamirpur
against the applicant Mohd. Haroon,
Advocate, Hamirpur. The contents of the
said first information report which set out
the prosecution case are extracted herein
below:-

"नकलप्र ०पि- To SHO Police Station
Kotwall,
Hamirpur,
From
Harshita
Sachan,
Civil
Judge
(J.D.)/F.T.C.,
Hamirpur. Subject: Complaint against
Advocate Mohammad Haroon practicing at
District Court Hamirpur Sir, This is to
inform that I took charge as Civil Judge
(J.D.)/F.T.C., Hamirpur on 05.07.2022. In
the fourt week of July (18th July - 24 July),
saw an advocate (Mohammad Haroon
practicing at District Court Hamirpur)
ogling at me through the gap between the
wall behind my chamber while I was
walking out of my chamber. It happened
twice that week. It did not know the name
of the Advocate at that point of time but I
recognised him as he had appeared in my
Courtroom before. On 25th of July, around
8:45 pm, after going for my usual walk at
the Yamuna walkway, I had sat down at a
bench there. I had earphones on and was
listening to music. Two minutes later, I saw
the same advocate standing right next to
the bench saying something. Out of
courtesy, I removed my earphones and
exchanges greetingsThen the following
conversation took place M. Haroon: आप
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
485
िमीरपुर ि पस आ र्यी िै तो अच्छ लर् रि
िोर् । I nodded M Haroon: आप सरील चली
र्यी थी तो मन निी लर् रि थ । I was visibly
uncomfortable and as he seemed drunk, so
I started to stand up from the bench, when
he said - मैने आपको दिस्टबग तो निी दकय ।
Where I said क फी लेट िो र्य िै, मुझे
दनकलन च दिये। and then I turned around.
As I was leaving, he said, िैसे अच्छी लर् रिी
िो। AS it was already quite late. I ignored
that comment and I left. I was disturbed by
this incident and I stopped going to the
walkway for a couple of days. I mentioned
that incident to my friends who urged me to
report, but believing that it was a one time
transgression, I decided to ignore it. A few
days later, I saw M. Haroon staring at me
again from the wall behind my chamber
while I was walking outside. It made me
very uncomfortable and anxious and I
walked back into my chamber not knowing
what to do. I had been avoiding going to
the walkway since the inappropriate
conversation as well On 01.08.2022, after I
had calmed down, I went for a walk on the
Yamuna walkway at 8:18 pm, I even sent
my live location to a friend because of the
fear of any untoward incident happening.
At 8.40 pm, I sat on a bench and within a
minute, M. Haroon walked towards the
bench. The following conversation took
place I asked him straightway. आपक न म
क् िै? M. Haroon: मोिम्मि ि रून Then I
proceeded to warn him, आपके उस दिन के
व्यिि र से में क फी दिस्टबगि हूँ आप जो यि ां
मेरे पीछे-पीछे चलते िैं और कोटग में िीि र से
झ ांकते िैं. यि िोब र निी िोन च दिये। आज
के ब ि मुझसे ब त करने की जरूरत निीां िै।
अर्र िोब र ऐस हुआ तो मैं दफर कम्पलेन्ट
करांर्ी। After listening to this, he walked off
without saying anything. After that day, he
would walk a few beet behind me every
time I would go for a walk on the Yamuna
walkway. He would also appear in my
Courtroom even when there was no mater
listed and would seat himself for hours. As
he did not engage with me explicitly, I
chose to ignore I have a habit of wearing
black sweatpants, blue-black checkered
shirts and while shoes when I go for a walk
I had the same outfit on when I went for a
walk yesterday, 18.08.2022 at around 8:00
pm: The moment I walked up the staircase
that lies on the road in front of my house
toward the walkway. I saw him walk up the
staircase as well. I continued on my usual
walk. That day, he walked barely two feet
behind me I also noticed that he was
wearing the same clothes as me, the exact
same outfit down to the white shoes. I was
terrified and freaked out by this behaviour
and in fear called a fried and decided to sit
on a bench so that he would stop following
me. The moment I sat on the bench, he also
stopped walking and sat on a different
bench nearby around 8.55 pm. Deciding
that I should go back home as I was feeling
unsafe, I stood up and watching me stand
up, he stood up as well and started walking
I sat back down and started filming him.
His steps were faltering and it was clear
that he was intoxicated. He walked a few
steps ahead of me and then turned around
towards me After seeing that I had my
phone pointed towards him, he started
talking to some people there. After that
whenever I would walk, he would follow
and where I would stop, he would stop as
well He would come towards me and
mumble something and try to initiate
conversation but I kept walking got a whiff
of a foul liquor smell coming off him filmed
him again turning towards me and then
walking to and fro at the same place,
waiting for me to walk again. Terrified by
the whole thing, I got down at the staircase
near my residence as fast as I could and
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
then around 9:05 pm, called senior Judges
to inform about the whole series of
incidents. While I was on the call, standing
on the road outside Judges Complex, I saw
him driving by his car and leaning outside
the window staring at me I have been living
in fear of further transgressions and
misbehaviour on the part of M Haroon
Despite my strict warning to back off after his
extremely inappropriate comments and his
clear intrusion of my privacy, he has resorted
to keep stalking and trying to approach me
am worried about my safety and well-being
in court premises and outside as well. I
implore you to take strict action and to
ensure
my
safety.
19.08.2022
Copy
forwarded to -1. Superintendent of Police
Hamirpur Regards, SD Harshita ( Harshita
Sachan) Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Hamirpur
8368471367 R/o J-6 Judges Colony District
Hamirpur, PIN- 210301 Permanent R/o.
174/W-2, Juhi Damodar Nagar, Kanpur Pin-
208027 मै क ०मु० अक्तखलेर् कुम र प्रम दणत
करत हां दक प्र ० पि की नकल मुझ क ०मु० ि र
बोलबोलकर अक्षरर् अांदकत करि ई र्यी। -
एस०िी० क ०मु० अक्तखलेर् कुम र"

3. A complaint dated 20.08.2022 was
sent by the opposite party no.2 to the
Chairman, Internal Complaints Committee
(POSH Act), District Court, Hamirpur
against the accused. On the said complaint
notice was issued by the Chairman of the said
committee to the accused.

4. The investigation took place in
which the statement of the complainant who
was the victim was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Subsequently
a
charge-sheet
dated
08.09.2022 bearing No. 182 of 2022 was
submitted against the applicant under
Sections 354, 354 (Ka), 354 (Gha), 509
I.P.C.

5. On the said charge-sheet the
accused was summoned vide order dated
13.09.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.
Div)/F.T.C.
(Crime
Against
Women),
Hamirpur.

6. An application dated 12.10.2022
for discharge was moved by the applicant
under Section 227 read with Section 239
Cr.P.C. The said application for discharge
dated 12.10.2022 was rejected by the trial
court vide order dated 15.11.2022. The
present petition has thus been filed with the
prayers as quoted above.

7. Heard Sri Deepak Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B.
Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the rejection of the application
for discharge dated 12.10.2022 of the
applicant vide order dated 15.11.2022 is
totally illegal. It is argued that the trial
court has wrongly rejected the said
application for discharge. It is argued that
the trial court did not consider the fact that
the applicant should be tried only for the
offences which are made out but not for all
the offences as stated in the charge-sheet. It
is argued that there is no allegation of any
offence under Sections 354, 354-A I.P.C.
and as such the said offences are not made
out at all. It is further argued that the entire
prosecution case is based on the sole
uncorroborated version of the opposite
party no.2 / first informant / victim which is
without any evidence and there is no
independent witness to corroborate the
same. The version as given by her in her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is
totally vague, baseless and contrary which
cannot be relied upon. It is argued that the
applicant is a practising Advocate and he
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
487
has not committed any offence. It is argued
that the charge-sheet as against the
applicant is groundless and no case is made
out against him and he deserves to be
discharged. The present application thus
deserves to be allowed and the order
impugned dated 15.11.2022 rejecting the
application for discharge dated 12.10.2022
be
set-aside
and
the
applicant
be
discharged.

9. Per contra learned A.G.A. for the
State opposed the prayer for quashing and
argued that the applicant is named in the first
information report and there are allegations
against him. The first informant who is the
victim of the present case has corroborated
the version of the first information report in
her statement given under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The
Investigating Officer after investigation has
submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant
on which he has been summoned to face trial
vide order dated 13.09.2022. It is further
argued that in so far as the application for
discharge of the applicant is concerned, the
court at the stage of discharge has to see only
the prima facie case against the accused and
cannot
judge
the
truthfulness
of
the
allegations made therein. It is argued that the
first information report and the version of the
first informant / victim during investigation
implicates the applicant in the present case
and there are prima facie allegations against
him. The trial court has by a detailed order on
merits rejected the application for discharge
of the applicant vide order dated 15.11.2022.
The said order takes into account the relevant
facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view of the law as is consistent till
date rejected the same.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

11. The law with regards to discharge
of accused and framing of charge is well
settled.

12. An accused can also be
discharged as per Section 227, 239 Cr.P.C.
They reads as under:

"Section 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."

"Section
239
Cr.P.C.
Discharge - If, upon considering the
police report and the documents 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 doing so."

13. The Apex Court, in the case of
Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I.: (2010) 9 SCC
368, held that at the time of framing of
charge, the Court has to look at all the
material placed before it and determine
whether a prima faciecase is made out or
not, and the court is not required to
consider the evidentiary value of the
evidence as any question of admissibility or
reliability of evidence is a matter of trial.
The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced below:
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"21. On consideration of the
authorities about scope of Sections 227 and
228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:

(i) The Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 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. The test to determine prima facie
case would depend upon the facts of each
case.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The Court cannot act merely
as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the
prose(i) The Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to s(i) The Judge while
considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
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. The test to determine prima facie case
would depend upon the facts of each case.

(iv) If on the basis of the material
on record, the Court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
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.

(v) At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material
on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the Court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227
and 228, the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with
a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage
to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.

(vii) 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 and at this stage, he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal."

14. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander : (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Apex
Court enlisted certain principles with
reference to exercise of power under
Section 397 and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by
the Courts while deciding as to whether the
charges framed against an accused be
quashed or not. The principles listed are as
under:

"27. Having discussed the scope
of jurisdiction under these two provisions,
i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the
Code and the fine line of jurisdictional
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
489
distinction, now it will be appropriate for
us to enlist the principles with reference to
which the courts should exercise such
jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult
but is inherently impossible to state with
precision such principles. At best and upon
objective analysis of various judgments of
this Court, we are able to cull out some of
the principles to be considered for proper
exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with
regard to quashing of charge either in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
or Section 482 of the Code or together, as
the case may be:

27.1. Though there are no limits
of the powers of the Court under Section
482 of the Code but the more the power,
the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The
power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the
test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a
conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then
the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not
unduly
interfere.
No
meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing of
charge or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such
power is absolutely essential to prevent
patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even
in such cases, the High Court should be
loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its
inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express
legal bar enacted in any of the provisions
of the Code or any specific law in force to
the very initiation or institution and
continuance of such criminal proceedings,
such a bar is intended to provide specific
protection to an accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to
balance the freedom of a person and the
right of the complainant or prosecution to
investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the Court
cannot be permitted to be used for an
oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made
and as they appeared from the record and
documents
annexed
therewith
to
predominantly give rise and constitute a
''civil
wrong'
with
no
''element
of
criminality' and does not satisfy the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court
may be justified in quashing the charge.
Even in such cases, the Court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.

27.9. Another very significant
caution that the courts have to observe is
that it cannot examine the facts, evidence
and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the
basis of which the case would end in a
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conviction,
the
Court
is
concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a
whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the
process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor
is the court called upon to hold a fullfledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give
rise to a civil claim and also amount to
an offence, merely because a civil claim
is maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal
complaint
cannot
be
maintained.

27.12.
In
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or
under Section 482, the Court cannot take
into consideration external materials given
by an accused for reaching the conclusion
that no offence was disclosed or that there
was possibility of his acquittal. The Court
has to consider the record and documents
annexed with by the prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an
exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
inclined
to
permit
continuation
of
prosecution rather than its quashing at that
initial stage. The Court is not expected to
marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility
and
reliability
of
the
documents or records but is an opinion
formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet,
report under Section 173(2) of the Code,
suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of
the above, where the Court finds that it
would amount to abuse of process of the
Code or that interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae,
i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts
exist.

27.16. These are the principles
which
individually
and
preferably
cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise of
extraordinary and wide plenitude and
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
by the High Court. Where the factual
foundation for an offence has been laid
down, the courts should be reluctant and
should not hasten to quash the proceedings
even on the premise that one or two
ingredients have not been stated or do not
appear to be satisfied if there is substantial
compliance to the requirements of the
offence."

15. In the case of Asim Shariff v.
National Investigation Agency : (2019) 7
SCC 148, it was reiterated by the Apex
Court that the trial court is not supposed to
divulge the evidence on the record to
determine whether the accused would get
acquitted or convicted if a particular charge
is framed against an accused. The relevant
portion of the observation of the court in
the case is as under:

"18. Taking note of the exposition
of law on the subject laid down by this Court,
it is settled that the Judge while considering
the question of framing charge under Section
227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
491
Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant
cases) 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;
where the material placed before the court
discloses grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the
court will be fully justified in framing the
charge; by and large if two views are
possible and one of them giving rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge
will be justified in discharging him. It is thus
clear that while examining the discharge
application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it
is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its
judicial mind to determine as to whether a
case for trial has been made out or not. It is
true that in such proceedings, the court is not
supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling
the evidence on record."

16. Further, in the case of Vikram
Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 2019
SCC OnLine SC 609 the Apex Court has
reiterated that during the stage of charge,
the court must not conduct a mini-trial and
the decision should be based on the prima
facie appreciation of the materials placed
on record. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is as under:

"19. It is, thus, clear that while
considering the discharge application, the
Court is to exercise its judicial mind to
determine whether a case for trial has been
made out or not. It is true that in such
proceedings, the Court is not to hold the
mini trial by marshalling the evidence."

17. The Apex Court in Bhawna Bai
Vs. Ghanshyam : (2020) 2 SCC 217, has
observed as under:-

"13. ...At the time of framing the
charges, only prima facie case is to be
seen; whether case is beyond reasonable
doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the
stage of framing the charge, the court has
to see if there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. While
evaluating the materials, strict standard of
proof is not required; only prima facie
case against the accused is to be seen."

18. In M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs.
CBI : (2020) 2 SCC 768, the Hon'ble
Apex
Court,
while
discussing
the
principles to be followed while dealing
with an application seeking discharge,
observed as under:

"i. If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
Trial Judge would be empowered to
discharge the accused.

ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere
Post Office to frame the charge at the
instance of the prosecution.

iii. The Judge has merely to sift
the evidence in order to find out whether
or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. Evidence would consist of the
statements recorded by the Police or the
documents produced before the Court.

iv. 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
evidence, if any, "cannot show that the
accused committed offence, then, there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding
with the trial.
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

v. It is open to the accused to
explain away the materials giving rise to
the grave suspicion.

vi. The court has to consider the
broad probabilities, 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, would not entitle the court to
make a roving inquiry into the pros and
cons.

vii. At the time of framing of the
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.

viii. There must exist some
materials for entertaining the strong
suspicion which can form the basis for
drawing up a charge and refusing to
discharge the accused..."

19. The Apex Court decision in State
of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap :
2021 SCC OnLine SC 314, held that the at
the stage of framing of the charge and/or
considering the discharge application, a
mini trial is not permissible. The Court
observed that the position of law that
emerges
is
that
at
the
stage
of
discharge/framing of charge, the Judge is
merely required to take note of the material
on record in order to find out whether or
not
there
is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused.

20. In the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 314, the Apex Court held that the
evaluation of evidence on merits is not
permissible at the stage of considering the
application for discharge. At the stage of
framing of the charge and/or considering the
discharge application, a mini trial is not
permissible. It has been held as under:

"23. In the case of P. Vijayan
(supra), this Court had an occasion to
consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is
required to be considered at the time of
framing of the charge and/or considering the
discharge application has been considered
elaborately in the said decision. It is observed
and held that 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.
It is observed that in other words, the
sufficiency of grounds 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. It is further observed that if the Judge
comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed, he will frame a charge
under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will
discharge the accused. It is further observed
that while exercising its judicial mind to the
facts of the case in order to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out
by the prosecution, 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."

21 . Further the Apex Court in the case
of State of Orissa Vs. Pratima Mohanty :
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222 decided on 11
December 2021, has comprehensively dealt
with the powers exercisable and extent of
the jurisdiction of the High Court while
deciding a petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. It has been held as under:
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
493

"16. It is trite that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection and in rare cases. As
per settled proposition of law while
examining an FIR/complaint quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon any enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness of allegations made in the
FIR/complaint.
Quashing
of
a
complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the
criminal proceedings should not be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation
the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage
of
discharge
and/or
considering
the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the
courts are not required to go into the merits
of the allegations and/or evidence in detail
as if conducing the mini-trial. As held by this
Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the Court."

22. In the case of Hazrat Deen vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh: 2022 SCC Online
SC 1781 the Apex Court has in para 6 held
as follows:

"6. Discrepancies between the
FIR and any subsequent statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. may be a
defence.
However,
the
discrepancies
cannot be a ground for discharge without
initiation of trial."

23. In the case of State Through
Deputy Superintendentof Police Vs. R.
Soundirarasu : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1150 the Apex Court has held as under:

"75. The ambit and scope of
exercise of power under Sections 239 and
240 of the CrPC, are therefore fairly well
settled. The obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 arises when the
Magistrate considers the charge against
the accused to be "groundless". The Section
mandates
that
the
Magistrate
shall
discharge the accused recording reasons, if
after (i) considering the police report and
the documents sent with it under Section
173,
(ii)
examining
the
accused,
if
necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution
and the accused an opportunity of being
heard, he considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless, i.e., either there
is no legal evidence or that the facts are
such that no offence is made out at all. No
detailed evaluation of the materials or
meticulous consideration of the possible
defences need be undertaken at this stage
nor any exercise of weighing materials in
golden scales is to be undertaken at this
stage - the only consideration at the stage
of Section 239/240 is as to whether the
allegation/charge is groundless.

76. This would not be the stage
for weighing the pros and cons of all the
implications of the materials, nor for sifting
the materials placed by the prosecution the
exercise at this stage is to be confined to
considering the police report and the
documents
to
decide
whether
the
allegations against the accused can be said
to be "groundless".

77. The word "ground" according
to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes
foundation or basis, and in the context of
prosecution in a criminal case, it would be
held to mean the basis for charging the
accused or foundation for the admissibility
of evidence. Seen in the context, the word
"groundless" would connote no basis or
foundation in evidence. The test which may,
therefore, be applied for determining
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether the charge should be considered
groundless is that where the materials are
such that even if unrebutted, would make
out no case whatsoever."

24. In the case of Manendra Prasad
Tiwari Vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1057, the Apex Court has
explained the well-settled law on exercise
of powers under Section 397 and 482
Cr.P.C. as under:

"21. The law is well settled that
although it is open to a High Court
entertaining a petition under Section 482
of the CrPC or a revision application
under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash
the charges framed by the trial court, yet
the same cannot be done by weighing the
correctness or sufficiency of the evidence.
In a case praying for quashing of the
charge, the principle to be adopted by the
High Court should be that if the entire
evidence produced by the prosecution is
to be believed, would it constitute an
offence or not. The truthfulness, the
sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced at the time of framing
of a charge can be done only at the stage
of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the
stage of charge the Court is to examine
the materials only with a view to be
satisfied
that
prima
facie
case
of
commission of offence alleged has been
made out against the accused person. It is
also well settled that when the petition is
filed by the accused under Section 482
CrPC or a revision Petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge
framed against him, the Court should not
interfere with the order unless there are
strong reasons to hold that in the interest
of justice and to avoid abuse of the
process of the Court a charge framed
against the accused needs to be quashed.
Such an order can be passed only in
exceptional cases and on rare occasions.
It is to be kept in mind that once the trial
court has framed a charge against an
accused the trial must proceed without
unnecessary interference by a superior
court and the entire evidence from the
prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for
quashing of a charge before the entire
prosecution evidence has come on record
should
not
be
entertained
sans
exceptional cases.

22. The scope of interference and
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
of CrPC has been time and again explained
by this Court. Further, the scope of
interference under Section 397 CrPC at a
stage, when charge had been framed, is
also well settled. At the stage of framing of
a charge, the court is concerned not with
the proof of the allegation rather it has to
focus on the material and form an opinion
whether there is strong suspicion that the
accused has committed an offence, which if
put to trial, could prove his guilt. The
framing of charge is not a stage, at which
stage the final test of guilt is to be applied.
Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing
the charge, the court should form an
opinion that the accused is certainly guilty
of committing an offence, is to hold
something which is neither permissible nor
is in consonance with the scheme of Code
of Criminal Procedure

23. Section 397 CrPC vests the
court with the power to call for and
examine the records of an inferior court for
the purposes of satisfying itself as to the
legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or
1 All. Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
495
an error of jurisdiction or law or the
perversity
which
has
crept
in
the
proceeding."

25. In the case of Kanchan Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar : (2022) 9 SCC 577 the
Apex
Court
while
considering
the
judgement in the case of Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
summarised the principles on discharge
under Section 227 Cr.P.C.