Thippeswamy vs Naresh Kumar M.J.

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The present petition is filed in the background that the petitioners are accused of offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 324, 326, 427, 506, 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC", for brevity).

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the prosecution has gone overboard in invoking the several provisions of the IPC, given the circumstances of the case. On the face of it, he would point out that the allegations against the accused are that they were armed with sticks and the alleged attack on the complainant and another has resulted in certain alleged injuries which are not of a serious nature and could not have been caused with any deadly weapon and therefore, Section 307 having been invoked, would result in the gravity of the alleged offence being not present.

Further, by virtue of the court not having taken note of this circumstance in spite of an application having been filed highlighting the same and having rejected the application, the petitioners face the prospect of being tried before the Sessions Court and by virtue of this, if not for the invocation of Section 307 of the IPC, it was possible that the petitioners would have been tried before the Court of Magistrate and depending on the outcome of the same, if they were by chance convicted, they would have had a right of appeal before the Sessions Court which is taken away by virtue of rejection of the application and the inevitable framing of charges including for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and therefore, would seek that this Court peruse the record which would, on the face of it demonstrate the merit of the petitioners'' case.

The learned counsel for the respondent however would seek to justify the order of the court below.

From a perusal of the relevant provisions namely Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C." for brevity), it is evident that having regard to the stage of the proceedings where the Court on a perusal of the record and after hearing the accused, and the prosecution if the court were to come to a conclusion that there is no case made out for trial, it may immediately discharge the accused. For otherwise, it proceeds further in accordance with law. Therefore, the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court which does not require any detailed investigation or a closer perusal of the record, which exercise would be undertaken at the trial, to complain that the court has overlooked glaring circumstances, may not be wholly correct. The view or opinion formed by the Magistrate at the stage of the proceedings u/s 227 does not compel the Court to explain its reasoning or to expound on the reasons by a detailed order as has been done in the present case on hand.

Therefore, there is no warrant for interference by this Court even if it could be said that there are glaring circumstances which warranted discharge. If there are glaring circumstances which ultimately the prosecution would not be in a position to sustain the petitioners apprehension that he may lose a right of an appeal, is ill-founded. He would succeed whether it is before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Court. Therefore, with that observation, the petition is rejected.