HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33627 of 2019 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No.215 of 2018 dated 22.12.2018 and order dated 16.8.2019 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Banda and entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No.31 of 2019, under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Baberu, District Banda, pending in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Banda. 3. The brief facts of the case, are as that a First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.265 of 2018, under Sections 387, 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baberu District Banda. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate took cognizance. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The applicant filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was dismissed, vide order dated 16.8.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the allegations in the FIR and statements of the witnesses are general omnibus, false and fabricated only to harass the applicant. He submits that there is no medical evidence showing any injury to the informant, no firearm or fired bullet/cartridge has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Braj Mohan Singh, Love Lesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Faizan Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) recovered either from the spot or from the possession of the applicant, and the alleged eye-witnesses are family members of the informant. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. It is, therefore, submitted that the material collected during investigation does not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 387, 307 and 506 IPC and the learned trial court has not considered the evidence available on record and rejected the said application without appreciation of facts. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court erred in law while rejecting the application without proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations against the applicant regarding demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Gunda Tax, threat to life and firing upon the informant with intention to kill him. The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also attribute specific overt acts to the applicant. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the applciant. He further submits that at the stage of deciding the discharge application, the court is not required to weigh the evidence in golden scale and evaluate its proof but only to consider whether a prima facie case is made out. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary and must be exercised sparingly. If a trial court considers a discharge application and found sufficient ground to proceed, the High Court, while exercising for inherent jurisdiction, does not act as court of appeal or re- appreciate the raw evidence. It is well settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that at the state considering the discharge application, the trial court has to evaluation whether there is a criminal acts (grave suspicion) against the accused. The detailed evaluation of the statements, the credibility of the statements and mini-trial are insuperable at this juncture. 7. From the perusal of the charge sheet and statements recorded under A482 No. 33627 of 2019 2 Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that specific overt acts have been attributed to the applicant regarding illegal demand, threat and firing with an intention to cause death under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C. These matters of trial which requires examination of evidence on record. 8. In view of the material available on record, this Court finds that no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court in rejecting the discharge application. According to evidence, available on record, prima facie case is made out. 9. Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that any observation made herein are strictly for the purpose of deciding this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and shall not influence on the trial court during conduct of the trial. September 29, 2026 Md Faisal A482 No. 33627 of 2019 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad