State of U.P. and Another v. Party

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. As per the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, an application 11-Kha, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused-Udai Veer Singh and another application 13-Kha, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused-Gurudev Singh, Kallu @ Ramji Singh, Kishan Swaroop and Mangal Singh, which have been rejected by the learned trial court by passing the impugned order on the basis that there are sufficient evidence collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, which indicates the role of accused in committing the alleged offence. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionist Udai Veer Singh has preferred this criminal revision on the following grounds:- " A. Because framing charge under section 307 IPC against the revisionist is 2 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024 wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the material evidence on record and thus is liable to be set aside. B. Because the trial court without application of judicial mind framed charge which is against the settled principles of law. C. Because in the order dated 06. 10. 2023 the essential ingredients are missing and therefore without the same it is meaningless. D. Because there is no mention of intention not motive for the alleged offence. E. Because the trail Court framed charge without considering the entire evidence on records collected by the investigation and has resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set aside. F. Because the from perusal of the injury report as well as x-ray report the case only travel beyond 325 IPC. G. Because from the perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the investigating officer, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and thus the order suffers from infirmity and is clear abuse of the powers of the court. H. Because the trail court has net adopted the current procedure and framed charge under section 307 IPC against the revisionist which is erroneous and cryptic in manner. I. Because the Learned Session Judge without applying the Judicial mind as well as without going in to merit of the case, wrongly allowed the application of the respondent vide order dated 06. 10. 2023. J. Because Learned Court below has exceeded his Jurisdiction and beyond jurisdiction, passed the said impugn order which is illegal and it is likely to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. K. Because the Court below has committed many fast error of law and facts both in passing the impugn order dated 06. 10. 2023 which is not sustainable in the eye of law. L. Because Learned Court below has failed to consider the evidence on record and ignoring the settled principle of law illegally allowed the application of the respondent and proceeded ex party by passing the impugn 3 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024 order which is not sustainable in eye of law."

4. While having a walk through to the material available on record, it appears that in compliance of the order dated 02.12.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant-Sri Ram Singh, F.I.R. was registered against Udai Veer Singh, Ram Prakash, Vir Singh, Ram Kesh, Garudev Singh, Kallu, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 & 323 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the above accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 & 323 I.P.C. after taking cognizance on that charge-sheet the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused Vir Singh, Ram Kesh, Garudev Singh, Kallu, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh have filed a discharge application and the photocopy of the application 11-Kha has been submitted with the revision petition by the revisionist which shows that this application was moved by the accused Vir Singh s/o Ram Prakash whereas this revision has been preferred by another accused Udai Veer Singh s/o Ram Prakash who is not the applicant of any discharge application. It is not clear that after passing of the order dated 06.10.2023, charges have been framed or not but considering the time already spent after the impugned order the charges must have been framed, therefore it appears that the revisionist does not have any grievance against the impugned order of rejection of discharge application, which is passed only against the accused Vir Singh, Gurudev Singh, Kallu @ Ramjit Singh, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh.

5. Since the impugned order has been made for framing of charges against Udai Veer Singh along with other accused, this revision is being taken up for consideration.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State that their cogent and reliable evidences are available with the charge-sheet whereupon prima facie case against the revisionist as well as the other accused persons is made out. At the time of hearing of charges, the Court is not required to go for a mini trial and to appreciate the evidences in the parameters of beyond reasonable doubt. Learned court has considered all the facts and evidences available on record and passed a reasoned order. 4 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024

7. A perusal of copy of F.I.R., charge-sheet, injury report and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that specific role has been assigned in committing the offence in the statement of informant, who is also one eye-witness of this matter, he has stated that Udai Veer and Veer Singh has fired upon him by their guns and country made pistols. There is a fracture found in the left hand of the informant-Ram Singh. Mere absence of any fire arm injury, it cannot be said that there was no attempt to murder unless it is proved that no fire arm was used in the incident. As per the copy of the application 11-Kha, it appears that there was a cross version of the incident for which an F.I.R. was registered with the Case Crime No. 191 of 1998 against the informant of the present case and others, which also indicates that some incident took place wherein role of the revisionist and other accused persons are apparent from the facts and the evidences collected by the Investigating Officer.

8. In view of the above, the perusal of impugned order dated 06.10.2023 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials available on record and passed the impugned order.

9. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has found that there are sufficient evidence available on record regarding the alleged charge against the accused, there is no lawful ground to discharge the accused persons. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order assigning the reasons for declining to allow the discharge application, therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

10. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) November 25, 2025 Vibha Singh

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. As per the impugned order dated 06.10.2023, an application 11-Kha, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused-Udai Veer Singh and another application 13-Kha, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused-Gurudev Singh, Kallu @ Ramji Singh, Kishan Swaroop and Mangal Singh, which have been rejected by the learned trial court by passing the impugned order on the basis that there are sufficient evidence collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, which indicates the role of accused in committing the alleged offence. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionist Udai Veer Singh has preferred this criminal revision on the following grounds:- " A. Because framing charge under section 307 IPC against the revisionist is 2 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024 wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the material evidence on record and thus is liable to be set aside. B. Because the trial court without application of judicial mind framed charge which is against the settled principles of law. C. Because in the order dated 06. 10. 2023 the essential ingredients are missing and therefore without the same it is meaningless. D. Because there is no mention of intention not motive for the alleged offence. E. Because the trail Court framed charge without considering the entire evidence on records collected by the investigation and has resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set aside. F. Because the from perusal of the injury report as well as x-ray report the case only travel beyond 325 IPC. G. Because from the perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the investigating officer, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and thus the order suffers from infirmity and is clear abuse of the powers of the court. H. Because the trail court has net adopted the current procedure and framed charge under section 307 IPC against the revisionist which is erroneous and cryptic in manner. I. Because the Learned Session Judge without applying the Judicial mind as well as without going in to merit of the case, wrongly allowed the application of the respondent vide order dated 06. 10. 2023. J. Because Learned Court below has exceeded his Jurisdiction and beyond jurisdiction, passed the said impugn order which is illegal and it is likely to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. K. Because the Court below has committed many fast error of law and facts both in passing the impugn order dated 06. 10. 2023 which is not sustainable in the eye of law. L. Because Learned Court below has failed to consider the evidence on record and ignoring the settled principle of law illegally allowed the application of the respondent and proceeded ex party by passing the impugn 3 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024 order which is not sustainable in eye of law."

4. While having a walk through to the material available on record, it appears that in compliance of the order dated 02.12.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant-Sri Ram Singh, F.I.R. was registered against Udai Veer Singh, Ram Prakash, Vir Singh, Ram Kesh, Garudev Singh, Kallu, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 & 323 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the above accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 & 323 I.P.C. after taking cognizance on that charge-sheet the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused Vir Singh, Ram Kesh, Garudev Singh, Kallu, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh have filed a discharge application and the photocopy of the application 11-Kha has been submitted with the revision petition by the revisionist which shows that this application was moved by the accused Vir Singh s/o Ram Prakash whereas this revision has been preferred by another accused Udai Veer Singh s/o Ram Prakash who is not the applicant of any discharge application. It is not clear that after passing of the order dated 06.10.2023, charges have been framed or not but considering the time already spent after the impugned order the charges must have been framed, therefore it appears that the revisionist does not have any grievance against the impugned order of rejection of discharge application, which is passed only against the accused Vir Singh, Gurudev Singh, Kallu @ Ramjit Singh, Kishun Swaroop and Mangal Singh.

5. Since the impugned order has been made for framing of charges against Udai Veer Singh along with other accused, this revision is being taken up for consideration.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State that their cogent and reliable evidences are available with the charge-sheet whereupon prima facie case against the revisionist as well as the other accused persons is made out. At the time of hearing of charges, the Court is not required to go for a mini trial and to appreciate the evidences in the parameters of beyond reasonable doubt. Learned court has considered all the facts and evidences available on record and passed a reasoned order. 4 CRLR No. 2569 of 2024

7. A perusal of copy of F.I.R., charge-sheet, injury report and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that specific role has been assigned in committing the offence in the statement of informant, who is also one eye-witness of this matter, he has stated that Udai Veer and Veer Singh has fired upon him by their guns and country made pistols. There is a fracture found in the left hand of the informant-Ram Singh. Mere absence of any fire arm injury, it cannot be said that there was no attempt to murder unless it is proved that no fire arm was used in the incident. As per the copy of the application 11-Kha, it appears that there was a cross version of the incident for which an F.I.R. was registered with the Case Crime No. 191 of 1998 against the informant of the present case and others, which also indicates that some incident took place wherein role of the revisionist and other accused persons are apparent from the facts and the evidences collected by the Investigating Officer.

8. In view of the above, the perusal of impugned order dated 06.10.2023 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials available on record and passed the impugned order.

9. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has found that there are sufficient evidence available on record regarding the alleged charge against the accused, there is no lawful ground to discharge the accused persons. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order assigning the reasons for declining to allow the discharge application, therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

10. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) November 25, 2025 Vibha Singh