Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1181 PW 2022 State Vs Yazad and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005908-2022
ORDER BELOW EXH.5
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The present application is filed under Section 239 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, for discharge.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this application are as -
That informant Mrs. S, and accused are residing in the same
vicinity. The accused persons are harassing her on account of certain
disputes as informant is recording their actions. On 18.05.2022, at about
11.30 hrs. in the morning, all the accused persons quarreled with the
informant and used obscene/indecent words against her. Then informant
approached police and lodged report. Investigation started. After
collecting evidence police filed charge sheet in this court.
4. Accused appeared and filed this application. The summary of the
grounds for discharge, is that there is no evidence against them. On the
basis of material produced no offence made out as probative value is
missing. Certain witnesses not supporting prosecution. No role can be
attributed to them. No evidence collected, therefore, accused can not be
convicted on the material produced and hence, they shall be discharged.
5. Ld. A.P.P. and informant strongly objected to it. Summary of his
objections is that there is enough material to frame the charge. Specific
allegations are there against accused. Therefore, prosecution prayed for
rejection of application contending that accused can not be discharged.
6. The law is well settled, when the evidence produced by prosecution
is accepted by the accused as it is and no conviction is warranted or in
other words, if such evidence remained unrebutted and no conviction is
warranted, accused can be discharged. At the stage of considering prayer
for discharge evidence or it’s probative value can not be scrutinized. Such
Page - 1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. 1181 PW 2022 State Vs Yazad and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005908-2022
evidence has to be scrutinized only after full-fledged trial after giving
opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence.
7. If we go to the contents of the present application the scrutiny of
the evidence is sought by accused/applicant and they prayed for
considering it’s probative value. Such act of scrutiny is not permissible at
the stage of discharge. The facts pleaded may constitute defence of
accused, such facts have no relevance at this pre-trial stage of framing of
charge. Those can be considered only after full fledged trial at the time of
judgment. Therefore, application not tenable.
8. The evidence produced, particularly the contents of the First
Informant Report, clearly show that there is prima facie enough material
to proceed further against the accused. Therefore, application not tenable
and hence, order -
ORDER
Application is rejected.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 09.05.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 2/2
-- 2 of 2 --