Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2665 of 2010 Petitioner :- Puttu Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- H.M. Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 18.5.2010 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanshi Ram Nagar, in S. T. No. 239 of
2009, State Vs. Puttu Singh and others, whereby an application for discharge
moved by the revisionists u/s 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged by one Smt. Champa Devi
against the revisionists that they had abducted her husband on 23.6.2009.
Later on her husband was got released by the police from the house of Puttu
Singh. During investigation statements of Smt. Champa Devi, her son-in-law
Munna Lal and others were record and after investigation charge sheet was
submitted. At the stage of framing of the charge an application for discharge
was moved by the revisionists, which did not find favour and was rejected by
the court below vide order dated 18.5.2010.
I have heard Mr. H. M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Mr. Srivastava argued that the order impugned in this revision is a non-
speaking order and is liable to be quashed.
A look at the order would reveal that while passing this order the trial court
considered the statements of Smt. Snuita Devi, Munna Lal, Genda Lal,
Kaptan Singh and Indal Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. though, elaborate
discussion of these statements was not made in the order. On the basis of the
statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the trial court rejected the application for
discharge.
It is the settled position of law that at the time of framing of the charge the
trial court shall have to consider the evidence available before it and that is
what the trial court had done in the present case. The trial court was not
required to discuss the evidence. The only requirement was to peruse the
evidence and to be satisfied that a prima-facie case is made out to proceed
against the accused. The statements of the witnesses are on the record, which I
have also perused. A perusal of the statements and the FIR of the case clearly
indicates that a prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists. Thus, in
my opinion the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for
discharge cannot be said to be improper entitling the accused persons to get
any relief.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010
Pcl