Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devyani Ambilwade, the original informant, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Parbhani, below Exhibit 31 in Sessions Trial No.112 of 2018, whereby the accused (respondent nos.2 and 3) were discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The case arose from an FIR registered at Parbhani City Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The informant alleged that on 15th August 2017, the accused abused her with caste names and threatened her. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The accused filed an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. The informant then approached the High Court. The High Court examined the material on record, including the FIR and statements of witnesses, and found that there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charges. The court held that the Sessions Judge had conducted a mini-trial and appreciated evidence in detail, which is impermissible at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C. The court also noted that the informant, being the victim, has a right to challenge the discharge order. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - The court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to consider only whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, and not to weigh the evidence meticulously. The Sessions Judge erred in discharging the accused by conducting a mini-trial and appreciating evidence in detail. (Paras 10-15) B) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) - Prima Facie Case - The informant alleged that the accused, who were not members of SC/ST, abused her with caste names and threatened her. The court found that the allegations, if proved, would constitute offences under the Act, and the discharge was premature. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Victim's Right to Challenge Discharge - The informant, being the original complainant, has locus standi to challenge the order of discharge under revisional jurisdiction, as she is an aggrieved person. The court allowed the revision and set aside the discharge order. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in discharging the accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. when there was prima facie material to frame charges under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and IPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of discharge, and directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Prima facie case for framing of charges
- Discharge order not sustainable if there is sufficient material
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction against discharge
- Protection of rights of victim/informant under Section 19 of SC/ST Act
