Last Updated on September 6, 2024 by Satish Mishra

What happens when your 498A Discharge Application gets rejected, then you move in Appeal before High Court. Yes, the case is about that.

In this post we will discuss that the Allahabad High Court disposed off the petition on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. because whether there are contradiction or in consistence in the statement of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence during trial that stage has to come in this case. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.

498A Discharge Application conditions

A court may discharge an accused in a criminal case if the following conditions are met:

The court considers the charge sheet and documents filed by the police
The court examines the accused if it deems fit
The court hears arguments from both the prosecution and the accused
There is no evidence against the accused
The court considers that there is no prima facie case against the accused

Essential elements for 498A Discharge Application:

The Court have to consider the Charge sheet and documents appended thereto by the Police under Section 173, Cr.P.C:

•The Magistrate may, if he deems fit, examine the Accused.
•Thereafter the arguments of both the Prosecution and the Accused should be heard.
•Grounds against the accused to be baseless There should not be any evidence present against the accused. If the Court considers that there is no prima facie case against the accused.
If all the above conditions are fulfilled, then the Accused shall be discharged.

Section 498A- The Supreme Court has said that Section 498A cannot be applied mechanically. It has also said that the police cannot be used to hold a husband at ransom so that his wife can squeeze him.

Evidence

Medical reports and doctor’s testimonies can be used to prove physical or mental harm inflicted on the victim.

This view is taken on the recent judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another decided on 9 July, 2019.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90827098/

Ground of Petition:

This petition under Article 227 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 23.12.2017, whereby discharge application dated 8.9.2017 of the petitioner has been rejected by A.C.J.M. Court no.5 Moradabad in case no. 1260 of 2017 (computer case no. 10231 of 2017) (State Vs. Pramod Kumar) arising out of case crime no.52 of 2017 as well as cognizance order dated 11.7.2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad.

Also Read- Madhuri Mukund Chitnis vs Mukund Martand Chitnis

Contention of the Petitioners:

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.2 making general allegations. No specific role has been assigned to the petitioner.
There is contradiction in the statement of respondent no.2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In this case respondent no.2 Babita was not medically examined.The Investigating Officer without conducting the fair investigation submitted the charge-sheet.
The discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected by the court below without applying the judicial mind.
The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized without any demand of dowry. Neither petitioner nor his family members have tortured or harassed the respondent no.2 in any manner.
The FIR was lodged against the petitioner just to create the pressure by the opposite party no.2 to live separately. No offence under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the petitioner.

ALSO READ- DISCHARGE FROM 498A CASE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI LEGAL ADVICE

Contention of the Respondent :

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 23.12.2017.
It is settled law that at the stage of discharge, the court below is required to see whether on uncontroverted allegations made in the prosecution case and the evidence relied in support of same discloses the commission of any offence against the accused or not.
The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage. Considering the allegtions and material evidence on record, the prima facie offence against the accused/petitioner is made out, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

Also Read- discharge+498a | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

Observations made by the High Court:

The grounds taken by the petitioner are matter of evidence.
The High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. because whether there are contradiction or in consistence in the statement of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence during trial that stage has to come in this case.
As it is observed by the The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently on 01.05.2019 in State By Karnataka Lokayukta vs M. R. Hiremath 2019 SCC online SC 734 has held as under:

Also Read- discharge under section 239 crpc – Indian Kanoon

It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.

In view of above, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The court concerned while passing the impugned order has considered the relevant materials on record and decided the discharge application of the petitioner in the light of well settled principle of law.
It is directed that in case petitioner appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the petitioner shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law by the Seven Judges’ decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

ALSO READ- QUASHING OF FIR 498A 406 IPC HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Held :

The Court disposed off the petition.

Do read the most recent judgment on 498A Quashing by Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs Haryana Decided on 3.5.2024.

ALSO READ- DISCHARGE IN 498A WITH CASE LAW EXAMPLE.

For case specific advice on criminal matters related to Police Complaint on cruelty, domestic violence and dowry, one may contact top/best expert criminal Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.

More on 99888-17966.