The Allahabad High Court has held that while considering an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, courts are required to scrutinize the material placed by the prosecution and cannot mechanically accept the prosecution version by acting merely as a
"post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution."The Court observed that where certain accused persons were not named in the original complaint or in the statement of a key eyewitness and were implicated only through subsequent witness statements, the courts are duty-bound to examine such infirmities while assessing whether a prima facie case exists.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi partly allowed a petition challenging order of the trial court and revisional court refusing discharge in a case involving allegations of house-breaking and theft, and directed discharge of four women accused who were subsequently implicated during investigation despite not being named in the original allegations.
BackgroundThe proceedings arose from Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 registered under Sections 457 and 380 IPC at Police Station Baldirai, Sultanpur.
The criminal case had sprung from an application made by Tejbahadur under Section 156(3) CrPC, that the matter between the parties concerning possession of a house was pending before the civil court, and that the civil court had directed to maintain status quo in the matter.
According to the complaint, on 26.12.2018, when he was out for medical treatment, Baburam, Santram, Rinku and Devendra broke the locks of his house and shop and took away some articles such as a generator, paddy, wheat, furniture, a gas stove and a gas cylinder, along with other household goods.
On the orders of the Magistrate, FIR was lodged against the four persons under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.
During investigation, the complainant reiterated the allegations and claimed that when he returned to the village, he found the accused loading articles from his premises onto a pickup vehicle. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of the complainant's father, Raghunath, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police. Raghunath stated that after he and his grandson were taken to the police station, they returned later in the evening and found persons from Baburam's side loading goods onto vehicles.
Significantly, despite claiming to have witnessed the incident, Raghunath did not name several persons who were subsequently charge-sheeted.
Thereafter, statements of certain independent witnesses were recorded. On the basis of those statements, the investigating officer added several more accused persons, including women family members, and ultimately filed a charge-sheet against nine persons.
The prosecution also relied upon alleged recoveries of a generator and an LPG cylinder from some of the accused.
Discharge Application RejectedThe accused persons sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
They argued that although only four persons had been named in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and the FIR, five additional persons were later implicated without any foundation in the original allegations.
It was also argued that some of the accused had been falsely implicated and that the subsequent recoveries and further investigation conducted after filing of the charge-sheet were legally questionable.
The trial court rejected the discharge application by observing that the material collected during investigation disclosed offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The revisional court affirmed the order.
Scope Of Discharge Under Section 227 CrPCThe High Court relied on a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of U.P. and Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal.
The Court reiterated that at the stage of discharge, the court is required to evaluate whether the material placed before it gives rise to a grave suspicion against the accused.
Referring to the settled principles governing Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the Court observed that where the material merely raises suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to discharge.
The Court said that although a detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible at this stage, courts must still evaluate the broad probabilities of the case and cannot mechanically frame charges merely because a charge-sheet has been filed.
In its recent judgement in Tuhin Kumar Biswas, the Court had observed that criminal courts were meant to act as a first filter, ensuring that such cases, which have strong suspicions, go to trial. The judgment pointed out that the indiscriminate issue of charge-sheets in weak cases was responsible for the problem of judicial backlog and unnecessarily criminal prosecution of citizens.
Examining the facts of the case, the High Court found significant omissions in the prosecution material concerning petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the High Court came to the conclusion that there were considerable omissions in the prosecution material in respect of petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. The Court pointed out that there were only four names mentioned in the application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was filed almost a month after the alleged incident. The names of the petitioner Nos. The numbers 5, 6, 8 and 9 were not mentioned in the original complaint. Far more important, the complainant's father, who alleged that he personally saw the removal of goods from the premises, also failed to identify them in his statement.
The Court held that these omissions constituted relevant material which ought to have been considered while deciding the discharge application.
Justice Vidyarthi observed:"The failure of the trial court to consider the aforesaid relevant material vitiates the impugned order."The Court further found that the revisional court had also failed to examine this crucial aspect and had mechanically affirmed the trial court's decision.
Later Statements Could Not Be Accepted As Gospel TruthThe High Court attached considerable significance to the fact that the women accused were implicated only through subsequent witness statements.
The Court observed:
"It does not appeal to common sense that had the ladies of the house been involved in commission of the alleged offences, still they would not have been named in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and in the statement of the complainant's father, who claims to be an eye witness."The Court further held that their implication only through later witness statements cast serious doubt on the reliability of those allegations.
In one of the key observations of the judgment, Justice Vidyarthi held:
"Their implication only through subsequent statements of alleged eye-witnesses, without they having been implicated in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the statement of the complainant's father raises a serious suspicion against the correctness of the statements of witnesses alleging their involvement in commission of the offence and such statements cannot be taken as gospel truth."The Court further remarked:"The trial Court and the revisional Court have failed to evaluate the material available on record and consider the total effect of the basic infirmities in the prosecution evidence as noted above, whereas it was necessary to be done to ascertain the broad probabilities of the case. It appears that the trial court and the revisional court have acted merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution."The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution material did not disclose even a prima facie case against petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9.
Justice Vidyarthi observed:
"Petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9, all of whom are ladies and whose names were not mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or in the statement of the complainant's father, and nothing is said to have been recovered from whom, appear to have been implicated by including their names in the statements of witnesses later on as an afterthought."The Court held that those accused were entitled to discharge.
Civil Dispute Does Not Bar Criminal ProsecutionThe petitioners also argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature because litigation regarding possession of the property was already pending between the parties.
The Court in the present case upheld its previous decision that a civil dispute does not preclude the involvement of criminal liability, and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. which rejected such a submission.
The Court noted that, depending on the facts, a civil and criminal remedy may arise at the same time and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated simply because a civil action has been filed at the same time.
The Court found that while the prosecution material was sufficient to proceed against the persons specifically named in the original complaint and against the accused from whom stolen property was allegedly recovered, the same standard was not satisfied in respect of the women accused who were introduced into the prosecution story only through later statements.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the discharge application of petitioner Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 and set aside the orders passed by the trial court and revisional court to that extent. However, the Court declined to discharge petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, who had been specifically named in the original complaint, as well as petitioner No. 7, from whose possession the prosecution claimed recovery of the stolen generator. The petition was accordingly partly allowed.
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2542 of 2026
Baburam And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Shikhar Anand Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A., Dhirendra Kumar Mishra(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
Follow Us On Social Media