Vikash Shukla State of U.P v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sudhakar Counsel for Opposite

occurred on 09.03.2023 at about 5:30 P.M. from the house of the first informant. An FIR in this regard was lodged on 10.03.2023 at 13:31 hours at Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, in which neither the Revisionist nor any other person was named as an accused. During investigation, statements of several classmates, family members, including the aunt and brother of the abductee, were recorded, but none disclosed any circumstance indicating the involvement of the Revisionist in the aforesaid crime. Despite the absence of any incriminating material, the Revisionist was arrested on 23.04.2023 on the basis of alleged “last seen” evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence and lacked independent corroboration. The Revisionist was subsequently granted bail by this Hon’ble Court upon finding no legal evidence against 2 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 him. After commencement of trial, the Revisionist moved an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 11.12.2023, but the learned Trial Court mechanically rejected the same by the impugned order.

4. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that he was not named in the FIR, but on the basis of statement of witnesses Madhuri Singh, who is relative of the informant and whose statement has been recorded after 45 days from the lodging of FIR, he has been roped in the present case without any reason. There are evidences of friends of the missing son of the informant that he was upset with his exam and it is very possible that he has left the home in a frustration. There is no proper evidence to show that the victim was deceitfully enduced to the company of the Revisionist.

5. It is further argued that the alleged whatsapp chat is an afterthought and based on hearsay evidence. In fact, on the date of incident, the Revisionist was all day involved in the family and farming related work. The learned Trial Court has not considered the facts and material which are available on record and passed the impugned order purely based upon conjectures and surmises.

6. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that the discharge application filed by the accused-Revisionist is baseless. No motive has been asserted by the accused-Revisionist as to why he has been falsely roped in the present case. In the investigation, it is found that there was some relationship between the missing victim and the cousin sister of the accused-Revisionist, which was not liked by the accused and he had also warned the mother of her cousin sister about the same.

8. It is further argued that there are sufficient material available on record which insinuates about the involvement of the Revisionist in committing the offence by abducting and eloping the son of the informant. There is 3 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 grave apprehension that a missing son of the informant has been murdered by the accused-Revisionist. The learned Trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application after evaluating the facts and evidence available on record, which does not warrant any intereference by this Court.

9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as judgments relied upon, it shows that an FIR was lodged by the informant-Rangpal Singh on 10.03.2023 that his son Raj Pal Singh alias Priyanshu, aged about 17 years, student of 12th class has gone with some unknown persons by a motor cycle on

09.03.2023 at about 5:30 PM, was seen by some of the neighboring children. During the investigation, several statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as C.C.T.V. footage were checked and pamphlets were pasted at several places, in which witnesses Manoj Kumar, Harshit Yadav, Sailendra Singh, Shivajeet Singh have stated about the relationship between the victim-Rajpal Singh and the cousin sister of the accused, namely Himanshi Shukla alias Babli.

10. The witness Shivajeet Singh has stated that he had seen Raj Pal Singh sitting on the motor cycle of Revisionist-Vikash Shukla on 09.03.2023 at 6:00 PM. The other witness Rahul Singh, Sailendra Singh and Madhuri Singh have also stated alike and Madhuri Singh is also a last seen witness, who has seen Raj Pal Singh sitting at the back of the motor cycle of the accused. Admittedly, Raj Pal Singh is still not discovered, truthfullness and reliablity of the witnesses can be ascertained only after the trial of the case.

11. In the case law of Satish Mehra(Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be unjust to propose that the court should not look into the evidence presented by the accused at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges if that evidence could potentially damage the case's viability.

12. The aforesaid case has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist to support his defence that on the date of incident, he was 4 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 engaged with some family and farming work. At the stage of disposal of discharge application the fact stated by the accused-Revisionist in his defence can be considered only when it raises a grave suspicion on the prosecution story, whereas the evidences collected by the I.O. shows grave suspicion against the accused-Revisionist, therefore, this judgment will not come in the rescue of the Revisionist.

13. In the case of Prafulla Kumar(Supra), the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing a charge, the Judge is not a mere Post Office, but he is also not required to meticulously weigh the evidence. If the Judge is satisfied that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, he must proceed with the trial and the discharge application must be rejected. The evidence presented must be such that, if unrebutted, it could lead to conviction.

14. In the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that if the material placed before the Court gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused, then it is sufficient to proceed with the framing of charge, thus necessitating the rejection of the discharge plea. The test is whether the material suggest that the accused probably committed the offences.

15. In a case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. versus Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 SCC (1) 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against embarking on a 'mini-trial' to determine the truthfulness of the evidence at the stage of discharge. If the record discloses "grounds for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence, the application must be rejected, and the case must proceed to trial.

16. In view of the above case laws, the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record and passed the impugned order.

17. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has 5 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 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 person. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order on the facts and evidence 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.

18. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. December 9, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

occurred on 09.03.2023 at about 5:30 P.M. from the house of the first informant. An FIR in this regard was lodged on 10.03.2023 at 13:31 hours at Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, in which neither the Revisionist nor any other person was named as an accused. During investigation, statements of several classmates, family members, including the aunt and brother of the abductee, were recorded, but none disclosed any circumstance indicating the involvement of the Revisionist in the aforesaid crime. Despite the absence of any incriminating material, the Revisionist was arrested on 23.04.2023 on the basis of alleged “last seen” evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence and lacked independent corroboration. The Revisionist was subsequently granted bail by this Hon’ble Court upon finding no legal evidence against 2 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 him. After commencement of trial, the Revisionist moved an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 11.12.2023, but the learned Trial Court mechanically rejected the same by the impugned order.

4. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that he was not named in the FIR, but on the basis of statement of witnesses Madhuri Singh, who is relative of the informant and whose statement has been recorded after 45 days from the lodging of FIR, he has been roped in the present case without any reason. There are evidences of friends of the missing son of the informant that he was upset with his exam and it is very possible that he has left the home in a frustration. There is no proper evidence to show that the victim was deceitfully enduced to the company of the Revisionist.

5. It is further argued that the alleged whatsapp chat is an afterthought and based on hearsay evidence. In fact, on the date of incident, the Revisionist was all day involved in the family and farming related work. The learned Trial Court has not considered the facts and material which are available on record and passed the impugned order purely based upon conjectures and surmises.

6. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that the discharge application filed by the accused-Revisionist is baseless. No motive has been asserted by the accused-Revisionist as to why he has been falsely roped in the present case. In the investigation, it is found that there was some relationship between the missing victim and the cousin sister of the accused-Revisionist, which was not liked by the accused and he had also warned the mother of her cousin sister about the same.

8. It is further argued that there are sufficient material available on record which insinuates about the involvement of the Revisionist in committing the offence by abducting and eloping the son of the informant. There is 3 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 grave apprehension that a missing son of the informant has been murdered by the accused-Revisionist. The learned Trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application after evaluating the facts and evidence available on record, which does not warrant any intereference by this Court.

9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as judgments relied upon, it shows that an FIR was lodged by the informant-Rangpal Singh on 10.03.2023 that his son Raj Pal Singh alias Priyanshu, aged about 17 years, student of 12th class has gone with some unknown persons by a motor cycle on

09.03.2023 at about 5:30 PM, was seen by some of the neighboring children. During the investigation, several statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as C.C.T.V. footage were checked and pamphlets were pasted at several places, in which witnesses Manoj Kumar, Harshit Yadav, Sailendra Singh, Shivajeet Singh have stated about the relationship between the victim-Rajpal Singh and the cousin sister of the accused, namely Himanshi Shukla alias Babli.

10. The witness Shivajeet Singh has stated that he had seen Raj Pal Singh sitting on the motor cycle of Revisionist-Vikash Shukla on 09.03.2023 at 6:00 PM. The other witness Rahul Singh, Sailendra Singh and Madhuri Singh have also stated alike and Madhuri Singh is also a last seen witness, who has seen Raj Pal Singh sitting at the back of the motor cycle of the accused. Admittedly, Raj Pal Singh is still not discovered, truthfullness and reliablity of the witnesses can be ascertained only after the trial of the case.

11. In the case law of Satish Mehra(Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be unjust to propose that the court should not look into the evidence presented by the accused at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges if that evidence could potentially damage the case's viability.

12. The aforesaid case has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist to support his defence that on the date of incident, he was 4 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 engaged with some family and farming work. At the stage of disposal of discharge application the fact stated by the accused-Revisionist in his defence can be considered only when it raises a grave suspicion on the prosecution story, whereas the evidences collected by the I.O. shows grave suspicion against the accused-Revisionist, therefore, this judgment will not come in the rescue of the Revisionist.

13. In the case of Prafulla Kumar(Supra), the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing a charge, the Judge is not a mere Post Office, but he is also not required to meticulously weigh the evidence. If the Judge is satisfied that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, he must proceed with the trial and the discharge application must be rejected. The evidence presented must be such that, if unrebutted, it could lead to conviction.

14. In the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that if the material placed before the Court gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused, then it is sufficient to proceed with the framing of charge, thus necessitating the rejection of the discharge plea. The test is whether the material suggest that the accused probably committed the offences.

15. In a case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. versus Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 SCC (1) 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against embarking on a 'mini-trial' to determine the truthfulness of the evidence at the stage of discharge. If the record discloses "grounds for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence, the application must be rejected, and the case must proceed to trial.

16. In view of the above case laws, the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record and passed the impugned order.

17. By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has 5 CRLR No. 2596 of 2024 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 person. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order on the facts and evidence 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.

18. Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. December 9, 2025 ADY (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)