S.227 CrPC | Judge Cannot Act As Mouthpiece Of Prosecution While Deciding Discharge Application, Must Consider Broad Probabilities Of Case: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of CrPC, cannot merely act as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that the Judge should not make a roving inquiry into...
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of CrPC, cannot merely act as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before it.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav added that the Judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Section 227 of the Code provides for discharge of an accused. It states that upon consideration of the record of the case, documents submitted and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused.
The Court was dealing with a woman's plea challenging the order passed by Trial Court whereby her revision petition against the discharge of her brother in law was dismissed.
The petitioner wife had lodged an FIR against her husband and other family members including the brother in law under sec. 498A and 34 of the IPC.
In August 2012, the Metropolitan Magistrate did not find any specific allegation of harassment or demand of dowry against the brother-in-law and discharged him. However, it framed charges against all other accused persons. The said discharge was confirmed by the revisional court which was impugned in the High Court.
The Court was of the view that a judge, while considering the question of framing of charges, is empowered to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
"Where the material placed before the court discloses great suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in farming the charge and proceeding with the trial. However, if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the judge will be fully justified to discharge the accused," the Court said.
It added "In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the judge cannot act merely as the post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court and should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
Considering the overall facts of the case and in the absence of any specific allegation or role attributed to brother in law, the Court found no justification to take a different view than the one which was taken by Metropolitan Magistrate and affirmed by the revisional court.
The plea was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 809