MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) BY means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Case No.1515/2007 arising out of Crime No.563/2006 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC relating to P.S. Kotwali City, District Gonda. The applicants have further prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.02.2007, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. They have further prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Gonda, whereby the criminal revision No.426/2013 has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have pursued the record.
(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.132 (MB) of 2007 for quashing of the FIR in which the arrest of the applicants was stayed. After filing of the charge -sheet by the police, the applicants moved an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the charge -sheet together with the cognizance order in which an interim order was passed staying further proceedings of Case Crime No.563/2006. The aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC was finally heard and decided on 18.10.2011 directing the applicants to move discharge application before the court concerned through counsel within thirty days and directing the Court to hear and dispose of the discharge application in accordance with law. It was further provided that till disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. The submission on behalf of the applicants is that in pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the applicants moved an application for discharge before the Court concerned which was dismissed on 22.07.2013 on the ground that the grounds taken in the discharge application could be considered only after the evidence of the parties. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, the applicants preferred a Criminal Revision No.426/2013, which was also dismissed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Gonda vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2014. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the courts below have committed manifest error of law in not taking into account the evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. According to the learned counsel, the Court was required to go through the evidence collected during investigation for the purposes of discharge or framing charge against the applicants. When there was specific order of this Court to consider and dispose of the discharge application in accordance with law, it was incumbent upon both the courts below to have gone into the evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. The learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application of the applicants only on the ground that it could be decided only after the evidence of the parties. This approach adopted by the learned Magistrate is erroneous inasmuch as once the evidence of the parties is over, there is no question of discharge. The parties would be called upon to lead evidence only after framing of the charges but before framing of the charges, the Court has to satisfy itself as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record to proceed against the accused -persons. Learned Magistrate without following the prescribed procedure of framing of charge and in utter disregard of the order of this Court, rejected the discharge application merely on the ground that evidence of the parties would be required to consider the matter of discharge. The revisional court also found the order of Magistrate correct by taking a view that the order of the Magistrate was correct.;