Karnataka High Court
Shri. Chandramohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2020
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRL.RP.NO.100051 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SHRI. CHANDRAMOHAN
S/O RAMACHANDRA MALGUND
@ MULAGUND, AGE:59 YEARS
OCC. CASHIER, R/O II FLOOR
CHIATANYA APARTMENT
BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DATTATRAYA TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE INSPECTOR
HUBBALLI SUBURBAN POLICE STATION
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT CELL
BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
(BY SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.02.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL/SC/ST
CASE NO.43/2015 AND DIRECT THAT PETITIONER BE
-2-
ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 177, 178,
420 AND 196 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(i)(ix) OF SC/ST ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is preferred by accused aggrieved by the order of rejection passed by II Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge at Dharwad on an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this case are as under;
Petitioner herein is working as a head cashier in State Bank of Mysore which has merged with State Bank of India. It is alleged by the prosecution that petitioner belongs to "Hindu Ambiger" "Gangamath" and he does not belong to "Hindu Bhovi" coming under schedule caste. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner produced a false caste certificate and obtained a job in State Bank of Mysore thereby committing a -3- fraud to people belonging to Schedule Caste and the Government. It is alleged that District Caste Verification Committee in it's report dated 30.12.2005 submitted that petitioner does not belong to "Bhovi" caste and accordingly, Tahasildar cancelled the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner by order dated 29.05.2006.
3. It is further held that aggrieved by the said order of Tahasildar, petitioner challenged the same before this Court and after remand it was found that petitioner does not belong to "Bhovi" caste and accordingly, caste certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Tahasildar dated 08.02.1979 came to be rejected.
4. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not belong to 'Bhovi' caste, the respondent No.2-Civil Rights Enforcement Cell obtained permission from ADGP, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bengaluru for filing criminal case against the petitioner. It is further alleged by the prosecution that petitioner originally belongs to "Hindu Ambigera" "Gangamath" caste. By declaring himself as belonging to "Bhovi" caste he created documents and -4- obtained a false caste certificate. It is further alleged that despite being aware of the fact that he does not belong to "Bhovi" caste by producing false caste certificate, obtained a job in the Bank thereby petitioner committed an offence under Section 109, 177, 198, 199 200, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and hence for further investigation, the matter was handed over to Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Belagavi.
5. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Police Inspector, CRE Cell, Belagavi, case came to be registered and after conducting investigation a charge sheet came to be filed. In the charge sheet, the offence punishable under Sections 109, 199, 200, 468 and 471 were dropped and Section 196 of IPC and Section 3(i)(ix) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 were inserted. Thereafter, petitioner challenged the order passed by District Caste Verification Committee before Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by it's order -5- dated 12.09.2017. This being the facts of the case, petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for discharge which came to be rejected on 07.02.2018.
6. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is before this Court challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the trial Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar and learned counsel Sri.C.Jagadish, for respondent No.2 and learned H.C.G.P. for respondent No.1-State.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and against the facts of present case and hence the same requires to be reversed. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is innocent, law abiding citizen and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further contends that entire proceedings initiated by Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Belagavi (for short 'the -6- CRE Cell) is not just and proper and trial Court has committed a grave mistake in considering the Caste Verification Committee's report, which has no jurisdiction to decide, and which is not the proper Authority to decide whether the petitioner belongs to scheduled castes or not? He further contends that the caste certificate having been issued much earlier to the date of coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 (for short 'the Act') Therefore, the DCVC does not have any authority or jurisdiction to decide the authenticity of caste of the petitioner.
9. He has further contended that the appropriate authority has contemplated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') has not conducted the investigation. Therefore filing of charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Act, 1989 is not just and proper. He further contends that there is inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet under -7- Section 3(i)(ix) of the Act, 1989. He has further contended that the trial Court has not taken into consideration that the offence punishable under Section 3(i) (ix) of the Act, 1989 has to be investigated by an Officer above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and in the present case the investigation has been carried on by a Police Inspector which is against the law and hence on this ground also the order of trial Court deserves to be set aside or reversed. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court has not taken into consideration his school leaving certificate, based on which a caste certificate is issued by the Tahashildar which mentions Bhovi caste and same comes under the scheduled castes-category. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the same.
10. He further contends that the appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee (for short 'the DCVC') and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry which has also not been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. He further contends that the trial court -8- has committed an error in coming to a conclusion that petitioner has not challenged the FIR and charge sheet. Whereas, the petitioner challenged the FIR and charge sheet before this Court in which the direction came to be issued to the petitioner to approach appropriate appellate authority and same has been filed based on which, the order of DCVC was set aside by the appellate authority. He further contends that the trial Court has misdirected itself and not appreciated the material placed on record to consider that there is no ground made out to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, ought to have discharged the accused/petitioner herein. On these grounds and submissions, learned counsel for petitioner seeks this Court to allow the petition and set aside the order of trial court and acquit the petitioner/accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following Judgments in support of his case.
(i) Ajay Singh and Another Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, reported in 2017 3 SCC 330.-9-
(ii) Madhukar nani Dandge v. Ku.Shanta Wasudeorao Mankar and another, reported in 2017 CRI.L.J.3674.
(iii) State by Magadi Road Police v.
Smt.D.Jayamma, and Another, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3433.
(iv) Shanta v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1994 3 KarLJ 128.
(v) Jayshree v. The State and Others, reported in2015 ILR (Kar) 3463.
(vi) Chandra Mohan R Malagund v. The Regional Manager-II, Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of Mysore, W.P.No.18339/2000(S-DE) disposed off on 31.07.2003.
(vii) Chandra Mohan R Malagund v. The State of Karnataka, W.P.No.2914/2006 (GM-CC) disposed off on 02.03.2016.
11. Per Contra, the learned HCGP for respondent- State contends that the impugned order challenged before this Court is passed vide under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. while considering the same, the trial Court has taken into account whether there is prima-facie ground to proceed to frame charge against the petitioner. The trial court has considered the available material and the charge sheet documents to arrive at a conclusion that -10- there is no ground made out by petitioner to show prima-facie that there are no charges against him. Learned HCGP contends that the trial Court has rightfully looked into material records of the charge sheet and has held that there is prima-facie material to proceed against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court was rightfully rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner. He further contends that there is no illegality or perversity committed by trial Court in passing the impugned order. So also no ground has been made out by the petitioner to show that trial Court has committed any perversity in passing the impugned order. On the basis of such submissions, he seeks for dismissal of the revision petition filed by petitioner- accused.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appeared for the CRE Cell has vehemently contended that the petitioner herein belongs to 'Ambiger caste' and he does not belong to 'Bhoyi caste' coming under the definition of Hindu 'Bhovi'. He contends that petitioner has -11- deliberately created a false caste certificate and obtained a job in the bank, thereby he has committed serious fraud depriving the other suitable candidate to the same community for securing employment and livelihood. It is further contention that it is only the Parliament under Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India, which can notify and specify the caste and it is only the Parliament which may include or exclude from the list of scheduled castes specified in a notification. It cannot be done by any other Authority. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner is an unscrupulous element who in order to benefit himself has fabricated and created a document of false caste certificate with clear intention of malice to secure a job, thereby depriving the genuine constitutional right provided to other suitable deserving persons of the same community.
13. He further contends that petitioner is claiming himself to be belonging to 'Bhovi Caste', whereas as per the categories prescribed under the Act, the categories -12- as specified in Annexure-1 Category-1 clause 6(e) specifies 'Bhoyi' as the name of caste. He vehemently contends that there is no caste as 'Bovi' or 'Bhovi'. Therefore, the claim of petitioner that he belongs to "Bhovi" caste itself is false, misleading and unacceptable for the reason that no such caste is provided in the categories specified under the caste stated supra which is issued under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India by the State Government. Further contention of learned counsel that under the Category-I, Clause 6(a) it reads "Bestha", in the synonyms of (b),
(c), (d) and (e) none of which, "Bhovi" is found a place. Learned counsel further contends that despite the caste certificate having been allegedly issued infavour of petitioner in the year 1979, there is no bar for caste verification committee to conduct an enquiry about the caste of petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner may have challenged the order passed by the Tahasildar several times before this Court, but the order of cancellation being set aside has been made on technical reasons of non-issuance of show cause notice -13- and in none of the orders passed by this Court, there has been adjudication with regard to merits of case of the petitioner. Therefore, there has been no finality arrived by this Court in any of the proceedings and also the cancellation of caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar has not been finally decided by any Court as on today. Learned counsel relies on the following Judgment in support of his case.
(a) State of Maharastra and others v.
Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and
Another, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 80.
14. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, the point that arises for consideration before this Court would be, whether the trial Court has committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order of rejecting the application of petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
15. It is seen from the records produced before this Court that pursuant to the cancellation of caste certificate by the Tahasildar, a criminal case came to be -14- registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 177, 198, 199, 200, 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C on 23.08.2007. Thereafter, several proceedings have been filed by accused before the High Court for setting aside the cancellation of his caste certificate and the same came to be allowed by High Court in W.P.No.18339 of 2000(S-DE), W.P.No.2914 of 2006(GM-CC), W.P.No.14658 of 2007 (GM-CC), W.P.No.867 of 2008(S-DIS) by setting aside the cancellation of caste certificate by Tahasildar. In Criminal Petition No.100508 of 2015 accused/petitioner herein had filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of proceedings in the case initiated by police in Crime No.216 of 2007, in which case, this Court dismissed the criminal petition on the ground that unless the order passed by DCVC is set aside there is no quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. In W.P.No.104663 of 2015 petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the Annexure-G dated 13.02.2015 passed by respondent -15- No.5 i.e., Tahasildar and in the said matter an order came to be passed by this Court, wherein it is held "after arguing the matter for sometime as the petitioner has an alternative remedy provided under Section 4(b) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (reservation of Appointment Etc.,) Act, 1990, reserving such liberty, petition stands disposed of". Pursuant to this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department in Appeal No.1/2016-2017 challenging the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by Chairman, DCVC Dharwad. In the said appeal, an order came to be passed on 12.09.2017, wherein, the matter was remitted back to respondent No.2 therein i.e. DCVC and respondent No.2 was directed to constitute a committee strictly in accordance with Rule 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules, 1992') and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Accused was -16- directed to appear before the DCVC Committee without expecting any notice from them.
16. Coming to the facts of present case, on series of litigations initiated by accused stated above, it is the contention of accused that he was issued a caste certificate on 08.02.1979 by the Tahasildar by stating that he belongs to 'Bhovi' caste, based on which, accused joined his service as Cashier in State Bank of Mysore. Thereafter, the Tahasildar cancelled the caste certificate stating that it is false and fabricated document. Aggrieved by which, the accused approached the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petitions stated above and the Writ Petitions were allowed on several occasions, as time and again the accused approached this Court for setting aside the orders of Tahasildar, whenever caste certificate was cancelled on the ground of being fabricated and concocted and created document as held by Tahashildar. Finally, accused was directed by this Court to approach the appropriate forum i.e. by filing an appeal and he preferred an appeal which was -17- remitted back to the DCVC to go into the details of the validity of caste certificate. Which order as stated was passed on 12.09.2017 remitting the matter back to DCVC to consider all contentions of accused and to constitute a committee strictly in accordance with the Rules, 1992.
17. It is submitted across the bar by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that pursuant to such remand by the appellate Court, an order has been passed by the DCVC dated 14.03.2018 canceling the caste certificate of petitioner as he does not belong to 'Bhovi; community and it is specifically mentioned he belongs to 'Ambigar' caste which is Category-1 of backward classes.
18. Be that as it may, the present petition has been filed by accused aggrieved by the order of rejection of application seeking for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., it is the grievance of accused that the trial judge has not considered all these materials placed by him before the Court while considering the application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. It is his further -18- grievance that initiation of complaint by CRE Cell is ill- motivated and is not just and proper as the said DCVC does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioner belongs to particular caste or not. It is his further grievance that when the petitioner has been issued with the caste certificate way back in the year 1979. The question of caste certificate committee scrutinizing his genuinity of issuance of caste certificate does not arise, which is not considered by the trial Court causing grave miscarriage of justice to accused. In view of the above, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
"227. Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
19. On a bare reading of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., it is seen that on considering the records of case and documents submitted therein and after hearing the -19- submissions of accused and prosecution, the trial Judge has to consider if there is any sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. If there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. In this background, it is necessary to see whether the trial Court has considered the documents available on record and whether the accused has made out any prima-facie ground for discharge as there is no material available on records of the Court to proceed against him to frame charge. This is the only requirement under above said provision to consider either to frame charge or to discharge the accused. It is no doubt true that scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is on the narrow aspect of only considering what is the materials available on record before the Court, which is placed by the prosecution.
20. It is to be seen, whether the accused has the right to produce any additional material before the Court at the stage for framing of charges, whether the Court can -20- consider such material to discharge the accused. The basic principles, that emerge from the above the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, reported in 2020 SCC ONLine 412, in paragraph 55 by extracting the case of Sajjan kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held "on consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principle emerged:
"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 trial".
21. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No.54 of the said judgment that "at this stage, we may note that the Jurisdiction of this court, with regards to Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is limited and should not be exercised by conducting roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences.
-21-
22. It is also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State represented by Superintendent of Police Vs. J.Doraiswamy and Others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 149, wherein it is held while considering the petition for discharge courts cannot act as a appellate Court and start appreciating evidence by finding out inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses. It has further held that consideration of record for discharge purpose is one thing and consideration of the record while deciding the appeal by appellate Court is another. Further the Apex Court held that in the said facts of the case, there is no prima-facie case made out for discharge of respondents at this stage of the trial and thereby held that accused will have to stand for trial on merits in the light of documents and contents of charge sheet.
23. It is also necessary to extract the broad legal principles enumerated in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex -22- Court has laid down legal principles with regard to dealing with an application seeking discharge which are stated in paragraph No.17 of the said Judgment as under :
17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P.Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles :
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Evidence would consist of the statements -23- recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
17.5. It is open to accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
-24-
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused."
24. It is further stated in paragraph No.18 of the said Judgment that "the defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution". The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police. Further, in paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Apex Court -25- held, "it is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him. In paragraph No.30, Hon'ble Apex Court held "However, what is the meaning of the expression "materials on the basis of which grave suspicion is aroused in the mind of the court's", which is not explained away? Can the accused explain away the material only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution? Can the accused rely upon material which he chooses to produce at this stage?
25. Paragraph No.31, it is held that, in view of the decisions of this Court that the accused can only rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution, it must be understood that the grave suspicion, if it is established on the materials, should be explained away only in the terms of the materials made available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may appeal to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade the Court to discharge him. In the said case Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of High Court -26- which set aside the order of Magistrate allowing the application of discharge of accused. These are the broad principles to be kept in mind by the trial Court while considering application under section 227 of Cr.P.C.
26. In the present case on hand it is the case of prosecution that accused has created, concocted and fabricated a false caste certificate and after investigation a charge sheet came to be filed. While filing charge sheet, investigating agency has deleted provisions of sections 109, 199, 200, 468 and 471 of IPC and included provision of section 196 of IPC read with section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 thereby retaining earlier provisions of sections 177, 198, 420 of IPC as per FIR. It is the case of prosecution that after submission of charge sheet there were sufficient reasons and grounds prima facie made out to frame charge against accused and accordingly based on material collected and placed on record by investigating agency, trial Court came to a conclusion that prima facie case is made out to proceed -27- against accused and hence application seeking discharge of accused came to be rejected.
27. It is the argument of learned counsel for petitioner/accused that trial Court has committed an error in not considering several writ petitions stated earlier produced by accused before trial Court and not appreciated by trial Court in deciding application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioner/ accused has relied on several judgments stated above to canvas his arguments that trial Court has committed a serious error which has caused grave miscarriage by not allowing the application for discharge. On a careful consideration of all these judgments relied by learned counsel for petitioner/accused, principles laid down in all these judgments is one and the same wherein trial Court comes to a conclusion that prima facie there is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused. The trial Court is within its powers to discharge accused.
28. It is not that trial Court shall mechanically follow the process of a post office as stated in the case of -28- P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 as the judge is not mere post office to frame charge at the behest of prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or enter into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of section 227, Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of evidence recorded by police or documents produced before the Court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against accused so as to frame charge against him.
29. In all the cases the principles laid down by the Court is same. Therefore the requirement under law is the fundamental requirement under the provision as to -29- whether prima facie case has been made out by accused to show that there is no ground to proceed against him to frame charge and if so, then he deserves to be discharged. In the present facts of the case, it is a specific case of prosecution that there is a false caste certificate fabricated and concocted, created by petitioner to benefit himself, which attracts the provisions stated by the prosecution to which materials have been placed by prosecution through investigation agency, thereby final report with relevant documents.
30. This Court would not want to go in detail of said pros and cons of the matter in the interest of accused as this Court is only deciding the application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of accused at the pre-trial stage as it may lead to pre-judging the case before trial.
31. On careful examination of order passed by trial Court, it is seen that trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that while deciding the application for discharge under section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to merely look into prima facie material and it is not -30- expected to go into merits of evidence which is placed before the Court and it has further come to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused to frame charge. No doubt trial Court has held that the aspects indicated by accused are yet to be established by a detailed trial. But at the junction of pre-trial stage, prima facie material and evidence placed before the Court by prosecution cannot be overruled.
32. It is also necessary to mention here that accused has not placed any material before the Court to show that initiation of proceedings under IPC provision stated supra and charge sheet filed before trial Court has been quashed by this Court. No doubt several materials have been placed to show several rounds of litigation challenging different orders by accused. But that will not come in the way of trial Court to show that there is no prima facie case to proceed against accused. Accused, though, has made great effort to persuade this Court to allow this petition, but he has not been able to place any material before this Court or show any material irregularity, illegality or perversity in the order passed -31- by trial Court. Therefore there is no ground made out by learned counsel for accused/petitioner to interfere with the order passed by trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER Revision petition filed by accused/petitioner is dismissed.
It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merit of the matter and any observation made hereinabove shall not come in the way of trial Court in dealing with merits of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB/CKK/Mrk/-