While partly allowing an application for discharge, the Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there is a civil dispute between the parties, it cannot be said that the accused persons cannot be prosecuted for the allegations of commission of offences.

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge.

The Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it appears that while deciding an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine the material placed by the prosecution for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to whether the material gives rise to a grave suspicion that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.”

“In the present case, the allegations clearly make out commission of offences punishable in criminal law. Merely because there is a civil dispute between the parties, it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the allegations of commission of offences”, it added.

Advocate Shikhar Anand represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the opposite parties forcibly attempted to take possession of the house of the complainant, and they instituted a Regular Suit wherein the Trial Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. It was alleged that the opposite parties broke open the lock of the complainant’s house and took away a generator along with other household articles. By the time the police arrived, the accused persons had already taken away the articles. An application came to be filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. On the said application, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order directing the police to register a case. In compliance thereof, an FIR was registered under Sections 457 and 380 IPC against the petitioners.

The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 CrPC seeking their discharge. The discharge application was rejected by the impugned order, which led to the filing of the appeal before the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, the Bench explained that while deciding an application for discharge, the Court is required to examine the material placed by the prosecution for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to whether the material gives rise to a grave suspicion that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench stated that the non-mention of the names of petitioners in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was filed about one month after the incident, and the omission of their names in the statement of the complainant's father, who claimed to have seen the petitioners removing the goods, constituted relevant material which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court while deciding the application for discharge.

“However, the trial court rejected the discharge application merely by observing in a single sentence that the material collected during investigation disclosed the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. The failure of the trial court to consider the aforesaid relevant material vitiates the impugned order”, it added.

The Bench further clarified that the petitioners 5, 6, 8 and 9 were entitled to be discharged as all of them were ladies whose names were not mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the statement of the complainant's father, and nothing was said to have been recovered from them. However, the Bench was of the view that no good ground existed for the discharge of the petitioners 1 to 4 & 7, as they were specifically named in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and specific allegations were levelled against them from whom the stolen generator was said to have been recovered.

Thus, the Bench partly allowed the application by allowing the prayer for discharging the petitioners 5, 6, 8 and 9 while rejecting the prayer for discharge of petitioners 1 to 4 and 7.

Cause Title: Baburam And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:33434)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Shikhar Anand

Respondent: Government Advocate, Advocate Dhirendra Kumar Mishra

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Subhash Vidyarthi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.