# Ram Lal Verma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 231
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lal-verma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51123
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision, Section 200 - Examination of
complainant, Section 202 - Postponement
of issue of process, Section 244 - Evidence
for prosecution, Section 245 - When
accused shall be discharged, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 419, 420, 504 - once a
case
is
instituted
upon
the
private
complaint, after recording the evidence,
discharge application can be entertained -
police case - only one cross examination ,
private complaint - two cross examinations
- Distinctions between warrant cases
based
on
police
reports
and
private
complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - if
the
accused
produces
any
evidence
material at the stage of framing of charge
which
might
drastically
effect
very
sustainability of the case it infer that no
such material should be considered into by
the court at this stage. (Para - 7,9, 12)

Trial court after hearing parties rejected
discharge application - ground - application
under Section 244 Cr.P.C not recorded -
revisionist appeared in court - revisionist joined
as Branch Manager in U.P. Co-operative Village
Development Bank Limited - relieved - joined
branch at Jalalpur - trial court held - this fact is
to be proved by evidence - rejected the
application - Revisionist's Claim for Discharge -
Revisionist joined Tanda Branch on 29.08.1998 -
relieved for Jalalpur Branch on 18.08.2003 -
Incident occurred during his relievement - not
posted at the branch at the time - Revisionist
moved for discharge citing lack of posting at the
relevant time.(Para -2,6,13)

HELD: -Complainant not lead evidence under
Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C and discharge application
moved at prior stage; hence, case of applicant
covered under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. .
Trial
court must determine if the accused revisionist
was posted at the Tanda Branch when the
incident occurred. Court had the liberty to
discharge the applicant under Section 245(1)
even prior to the evidence led under Section
244 Cr.P.C., but if not posted, the revisionist
cannot face the trial. Court should consider the
applicant's objection. (Para - 11,14)

Impugned
order
quashed.

Matter
remitted to court concerned. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
231

36. It is further directed that till the
disposal
of
the
aforesaid
discharge
application, if filed, within the stipulated
time given by this Court, no coercive action
shall be taken against the appellant.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 231
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2019

Ram Lal Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ganesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision, Section 200 - Examination of
complainant, Section 202 - Postponement
of issue of process, Section 244 - Evidence
for prosecution, Section 245 - When
accused shall be discharged, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 419, 420, 504 - once a
case
is
instituted
upon
the
private
complaint, after recording the evidence,
discharge application can be entertained -
police case - only one cross examination ,
private complaint - two cross examinations
- Distinctions between warrant cases
based
on
police
reports
and
private
complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - if
the
accused
produces
any
evidence
material at the stage of framing of charge
which
might
drastically
effect
very
sustainability of the case it infer that no
such material should be considered into by
the court at this stage. (Para - 7,9, 12)

Trial court after hearing parties rejected
discharge application - ground - application
under Section 244 Cr.P.C not recorded -
revisionist appeared in court - revisionist joined
as Branch Manager in U.P. Co-operative Village
Development Bank Limited - relieved - joined
branch at Jalalpur - trial court held - this fact is
to be proved by evidence - rejected the
application - Revisionist's Claim for Discharge -
Revisionist joined Tanda Branch on 29.08.1998 -
relieved for Jalalpur Branch on 18.08.2003 -
Incident occurred during his relievement - not
posted at the branch at the time - Revisionist
moved for discharge citing lack of posting at the
relevant time.(Para -2,6,13)

HELD: -Complainant not lead evidence under
Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C and discharge application
moved at prior stage; hence, case of applicant
covered under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. .
Trial
court must determine if the accused revisionist
was posted at the Tanda Branch when the
incident occurred. Court had the liberty to
discharge the applicant under Section 245(1)
even prior to the evidence led under Section
244 Cr.P.C., but if not posted, the revisionist
cannot face the trial. Court should consider the
applicant's objection. (Para - 11,14)

Impugned
order
quashed.

Matter
remitted to court concerned. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Adalat Prasad Vs Roop Lal Jindal & ors., 2005
(JIC) SC

2. Attar Singh Vs St. of U.P. , (2010)(2) DNR
page 558

3. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerals & anr. , (2010) SCC
398

4. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr. , AIR
1979 SC 366

5. Ajay Kumar Gosh Vs St. of Jharkhand & ors. ,
2009 (14) SCC 115

6. Satish Mehra Vs Dehli Administration & ors.,
(1996) 9 SCC 766
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,
J.)

1. The present revision under Section
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed against the judgment and
order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fast
Track/
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Complaint
Case No. 1130 of 2018 (Old Complaint No.
15040 of 2008) under Section 419, 420,
504 IPC.

2. It is submitted that the applicant
moved an application for discharge in
light of the order of High Court dated
25.03.2019 by which the applicant was
given an opportunity to file a discharge
application through counsel within 30
days form the date of order. Learned trial
court rejected the above mentioned
application on the basis of irrelevant
consideration as well as against the
provisions of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C as
well as spirit of order dated 25.03.2019
passed by the High Court only on the
ground that the evidence under Section
244
Cr.P.C
is
remained
in
the
proceedings and also that the revisionist
had never taken bail. It is also submitted
that the revisionist had served as Branch
Manager in the U.P. Co-operative Village
Development
Bank
Limited
Branch
Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar. He joined the
said bank on 29.08.1998 and served till
18.08.2003.
The
revisionist
superannuated from is post on 31.07.2004
from
the
Jalalpur
Branch.
After
superannuation the revisionist left district
Ambeadkarnagar and started living at his
home in district Basti. The revisionist
never served the Bank U.P. co-operative
Village
Development
Bank
Limited
Branch Tanda District Ambedkar Nagar
at the time when the alleged loan
transaction took place i.e. 25.05. 1998
and after his relieving he never served at
that said bank.

3. It is also submitted that the
complainant
filed
a
complaint
on
15.12.2007 arraying the revisionist as
opposite party No.4. After recording the
statement under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C, the trial court summoned the
revisionist by order dated 15.06.2009 under
Section 419, 420, 504 IPC. It is also
submitted that no case is made out against
the revisionist under Section 419, 420, 504
IPC as such on the perusal of the statement
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C no
ingredients has been found for cheating by
impersonation. Thereafter trial court issued
warrant against the applicant by order dated
08.09.2018. In the month of March, 2019
revisionist filed Criminal Misc. Case No.
1940 of 2019 (Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of
U.P and others) against the summoning
order dated 15.06.2009 in which the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the order
dated 25.03.2019 and directed the learned
trial court that the discharge application of
the applicant shall be heard and decided
expeditiously after hearing the parties in
accordance with law. The revisionist filed
application under Section 245 Cr.P.C and
disclosed true material facts. Learned trial
court rejected the application ignoring the
fact
that
the
allegation
against
the
revisionist is groundless and the case of the
revisionist is fully covered by Section 245
(2) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that
the proceedings under Section 245 (2)
Cr.P.C is to be followed than the provisions
provisions under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C.
Section 245(2) Cr.P.C dealt with power of
trial court discharging an accused even
before evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C
1 All. Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
233
is lead. Learned trial court failed to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 245
(1) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned
trial court has rejected the applicant even
the case is fully covered by Section 245(2)
Cr.P.C, hence it is prayed to set aside the
impugned order. Lastly, learned counsel for
the revisionist has relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported at 2016 (3) JIC 329 (Alld) to
contend that Section 245(2) Cr.P.C is a
stage
before
the
evidence
of
the
prosecution
under
Section
244(1)
is
completed or any stage prior to that; such
stages would be under Section 200, Cr.P.C
to Section 204 Cr.P.C because the next
stage is only the appearance of the accused
before the Magistrate in a warrant case
under
Section
244
Cr.P.C
and
the
Magistrate can take decision under Section
245(2) before the accused is brought before
the Court or before the evidence is led
under Section 244, Cr.P.C. There is no
question of consideration of evidence at
that stage.

4. None appeared for the private
respondent, learned A.G.A for the State
submitted that the order passed by the
learned trial court is within the purview of
jurisdiction of the Court. The revisionist
moved an application for discharge at the
premature state before recording of the
statement of the complainant under Section
244 Cr.P.C which was duly rejected by the
learned trial court.

5. I have heard the rival submissions
and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it
appears that learned trial court after hearing
the parties rejected the application on the
ground that the application under Section
244 Cr.P.C is not recorded, the revisionist
had not appeared in the court, the contention
of the revisionist that he joined as Branch
Manager in the U.P. Co-operative Village
Development Bank Limited Branch Tanda,
Ambedkar Nagar on 29.08.1998 and was
relieved from the aforesaid branch on
18.08.2003. Thereafter the revisionist joined
branch at Jalalpur. Learned trial court held
that this fact is to be proved by evidence and
relying on the case of Adalat Prasad Vs.
Roop Lal Jindal and others 2005 (JIC)
SC and also on the order passed by this
Court in the case of Attar Singh Vs. State
of U.P. (2010)(2) DNR page 558 rejected
the application. Before proceeding further, it
will be appropriate to reproduce Section
245(2) Cr.P.C which runs under:

"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."

7. A bare perusal of Section goes to
show that once a case is instituted upon the
private complaint, after recording the
evidence, discharge application can be
entertained. In police case there will be only
one cross examination however in private
complaint case, there will be two cross
examinations. The major classification of
criminal cases in Code of Criminal
Procedure are:

(1) Case instituted on the basis of
police report (Section 238 to 243).

(2) Case instituted otherwise than
on police report based on complaint Sections
(244 to 247)

8. In the case of Vijayan Vs. State of
Kerals and another (2010) SCC 398 and in
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal and another AIR 1979 SC
366 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has formulated the following guiding
principles:

"1. The judge while considering
the question of framing the charges U/Sec.
227 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. To determine prima facie
case would depend upon the facts of each
case.

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 court can not act merely as
a post office or a mouth piece of the
prosecution but it has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case. There cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weight the evidence as if a trial
was being conduced.

4. On the basis of material on
record if the court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed the
offence, it can frame the charge.

5. At the time of framing of the
charge, the probative value of the material
on record can not be gone into but before
framing of charge the Courts must apply
it's judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission by the accused was possible.

6. At the stage of Sec. 227 and
228 Cr.P.C the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged ofence but the court cannot be
expected to presume that the prosecution
story is gospel truth.

7. 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 the result of the
trial."

9. There are major distinction as
regards discharge of accused from warrant
case instituted upon police report and
warrant
case
instituted
upon
private
complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
In Ajay Kumar Gosh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and other 2009 (14) SCC 115,
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is
clear difference in Section 245 (1) and 245
(2) Cr.P.C. In Section 245(1) Cr.P.C
Magistrate has to consider evidence lead by
prosecution before him under Section 244
and he is to consider whether if the
evidence remain unrebutted, conviction of
accused would be wanted. If there is no
discernible
incriminating
material
in
evidence, then the Magistrate proceed to
discharge the accused under Section 245(1)
Cr.P.C.

10. The situation under Section
245(2) Cr.P.C however, is different. Under
Section 245 (2) the Magistrate has power to
discharge the accused at any previous stage
of the case even before such evidence is
led. However for discharging an accused
under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C the Magistrate
has come to a finding that the charge is
groundless. There is no question of any
consideration of the evidence at this stage
because no witness will be examined on
behalf of the complainant except the sworn
statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
Magistrate can take this decision before the
accused appears or brought before the
Court or the evidence is led under Section
1 All. Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
235
244 Cr.P.C. The word appearing in Section
245 (2) Cr.P.C " At any previous stage of
the case" clearly shows different position.
Now the question arise as to what the
previous stage is. The previous stage would
obviously
be
before
evidence
of
prosecution under Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C is
completed or at any stage prior to that. This
stage may be under Section 200 Cr.P.C to
Section 204 Cr.P.C in the case in hand the
court had find the evidence which was lead
by complainant under Section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C and conclusion reached to the
conclusion that the revisionist may be
summoned under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Notice were also sent to the revisionist
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. However,
revisionist instead of appearing in the court
moved the petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C challenging the summoning order.
Vide order dated 25.03.2019 a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court did not find any
abnormality, in the impugned order of
summoning the accused, therefore, the
order was upheld, however, the revisionist
was given the relief that no coercive action
shall be taken against the applicant if he
appears before the court in 30 days and
move an application for discharge through
counsel.

11. It transpires from the impugned
order that the complainant had not lead
evidence under Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C and
the discharge application is moved at the
prior stage, hence, the case of the present
applicant is covered under Section 245 (1)
Cr.P.C. In Satish Mehra Vs. Dehli
Administration and others reported in
(1996) 9 SCC 766, Hon'ble Apex Court
held that under Section 239 Cr.P.C the
Magistrate has to give the prosecution and
the accused a fair chance of being heard
besides taking cognizance of the police
report and document. The Magistrate has to
apply its judicial mind while considering
the discharge application. If the accused
brings any trustworthy material at that
stage or it drastically effect even a very
fesibility of the case, it would be very
improbable to recommend that no such
material would be taken into consideration
by the court at this stage.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
if the accused produces any evidence
material at the stage of framing of charge
which
might
drastically
effect
very
sustainability of the case it infer that no
such material should be considered into by
the court at this stage.

13. In the given case, the plea of
revisionist is that he joined as Branch
Manager of Tanda Branch on 29.08.1998
and relieved for Jalalpur Branch on
18.08.2003, however, the incident occurred
when he has been relieved for Jalalpur
Branch and the revisionist was not posted
in the branch when the incident occurred.
The incident is not itself challenged by the
revisionist he moved an application for
discharge on the ground that he was not
posted at the branch at the relevant point in
time.

14. Trial Court must consider the fact
that whether the accused revisionist was
posted at the relevant point in time in the
Tanda Branch. Nothing has been disclosed
in the impugned order whether the
revisionist was posted at Tanda Branch
when the incident occurred. The Court had
liberty to discharge the applicant under
Section 245 (1) even prior to the evidence
led under Section 244 Cr.P.C. If the
revisionist was not posted at the date of
incident, the revisionist cannot be forced to
face the trial to which he has no concerned.
Hence the court should consider the
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preliminary objection of the applicant that
whether he was posted at the relevant
point in time or not at the Tanda Branch.

15.

In
view
of
the
above
discussions,
this
Court
finds
that
impugned order dated 27.05.2019 passed
by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
suffers with material lacunae which was
not considered by the Court.

16. Hence the impugned order dated
is quashed

17. The matter is remitted to the
court concerned. The trial court shall
consider the fact whether the revisionist
was posted at the relevant point in time in
Branch Tanda or not and if it is found
that he was not posted and and he has no
complicity,
then
he
consider
the
application
of
discharge
of
the
revisionist. The trial court is also directed
to give opportunity of hearing to the
parties.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 236
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1007413 of 2012

Sohrab Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
D.M. Pratapgarh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manish Jauhari, Ambuj Kumar Bajpai,
Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Mohit Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A. Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959-Section
17(3)(c)-cancellation
of
licencesuppression of information with regard to
the pending criminal cases-cancellation of
licence of the petitioner on the ground of
pendency has wrongly been decided by
the Prescribed Authority as well as
Appellate
authority-Finding
being
arbitrary
are
set
aside-Prescribed
authority has not considered the aspect of
the material suppression information at
the time of granting arm licence is an
issue for which the matter is remitted to
the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh for
passing afresh orders.

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Murti Madhukar Vs D.M. Sitapur (1998)
16 LCD-905

2. Ram Karpal Singh Vs Commr.Devi Patan
Mandal Gonda & ors.(2006) 24 LCD 114

3. Ram Prasad Vs Commr. & ors.

4. Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs D. M. Almora
(1993) AIR All 291

5. Habib Vs St. of U.P.(2022) ACC

6. Masiuddin Vs Commr. Alld. Div. Alld. & anr.
(1972) ALJ 573

7. Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(1984) AWC 145 FB

8. Ilam Singh Vs Commr. Meerut Div. &
ors.(1987) ALL LJ 416

9. Habib Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2002) 44 ACC 783

10. Satish Singh Vs D.M. Sultanpur (2009) 4
ADJ 33 LB

11. Thakur Prasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2013)
31 LCD 1460 LB

12. Ram Murli Madhukar Vs D.M. Sitapur
(1998) 16 LCD 905