In an application filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of proceedings in a case against the applicant under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the trial court.
On 09-06-2020, a complaint was made alleging that the educational certificate of the complainant had been misused by some person to get appointment in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya even though the complainant never served at the said place. It was also alleged that the complainant had informed the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda on 09-06-2022 regarding the misuse of her academic certificate.
The Court found that the applicant moved an application for discharge in May, 2023, which was decided by the trial court in September, 2024. After perusing the trial court’s records, it was revealed that the trial court did not consider the grounds raised by the applicant in the discharge application and observed that the facts would be considered after evidence is produced.
ALSO READ: Patna HC: Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance After Accepting Police Closure Report
It was stated that while considering the discharge of an accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to consider the police report and documents sent with it under Section 173 CrPC. The Court said that this was not mere formality as if such Magistrate finds, while considering the discharge, that the charges against the accused are groundless, he/she may be discharged.
The Court stated that while dealing with an application of discharge, a trial court would not act as a rubber stamp or post office, but would apply its judicial mind upon the material. It was said that there could be no strait jacket formula for consideration of discharge as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Elaborating the significance of the stage of discharge, the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s observation that strong suspicion may not take the place of proof, at the trial stage, but yet it is sufficient for the trial judge’s satisfaction to frame charges against the accused.
Referring to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Court stated that while dealing with discharge application, the court must determine whether the facts borne out from the material discloses existence of necessary contents to constitute the offence. The Court found from the impugned order that there was non-application of mind by the Magistrate and that he had not examined the material before him.
Finding the impugned order to be unsustainable, the Court set it aside and remitted the matter back to the trial court concerned for a fresh order on the discharge application within eight weeks.
ALSO READ: Clever Drafting Cannot Create Fresh Cause of Action; Delhi HC Rejects ₹2.53 Crore Interest Claim
