Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115288 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19015 of 2009 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neelkant Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge-IV, Mirzapur in S.T. No.61 of 2009 (State vs. Anil Kumar and others), under Section 304 IPC, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mirzapur. 3. The facts, which reflect from the record are that an FIR was lodged against the applicant by Sub- Inspector on 07.02.2008 alleging that when the police party was on patrolling duty tried to stop the vehicle/Mahindra maker Jeep, however, instead of stopping the vehicle the driver hit one police personnel and ran away by rashly driving the said vehicle. In the said case, after investigation charge-sheet was filed on 24.04.2008 and the Court concerned has taken cognizance against the applicant. During trial when the charges were framed, the applicant moved discharge application, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 9.7.2009, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out against the applicant and instead the offence should be under Section 304-A IPC, hence, the impugned order 09.07.2009, by which the charges were framed, is liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA appears on behalf of State submits that the impugned order dated 9.7.2009 is perfectly justified and the discharge application has rightly been rejected. To buttress his argument, learned AGA has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that for framing of charge and discharge it is only the material produced by the prosecution alone, which is to be considered for framing of charge or discharge. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC has held as follows:- "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code 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. (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 test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This how ever does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 7. This ratio was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Bihar, 2022 (9) SCC 577 in which the ratio laid down in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) was upheld. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 (7) SCC 633, has observed that the law on the issue of discharge is well settled that, at the time of charge the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no offence is made out in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution then only the accused can be discharged. 9. In the instant case, the trial court while rejecting the discharge application has come to a finding that the material produced by the prosecution is enough and prima facie case is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged. In the instant matter, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants as the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the applicants. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments, I see no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2009 passed in S.T. No.61 of 2009 (State vs. Anil Kumar and others) under Section 304 IPC, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mirzapur, by Additional District Judge-IV, Mirzapur and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad