State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for Revisionist(s)

informant before the trial court to summon the present revisionist for facing trial under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C. alleging therein that during course of evidence, PW-1 informant has categorically stated that the revisionist Banti has also participated in the commission of crime and he is liable for facing the trial alongwith two co-accused persons who have been charge sheeted. The said application was partly allowed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly vide impugned order dated 19.03.2020.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent, 2 CRLR No. 1997 of 2021 he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that statements of the informant and other witnesses have been recorded wherein they have not supported the prosecution version. It is next submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer in which he has stated that the revisionist was not present on the spot. It is also submitted that the informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and his statement is based upon the statements of two eye witnesses namely Devendra and Karan and on their telephonic information, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant but their statements have not been recorded before the trial court. Cross-examination of PW-1 has also been completed. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly perverse and against the settled legal principles.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the instant revision and it has been submitted that PW-1 informant has been examined before the trial court and he has proved the active participation of the present revisionist in the commission of the alleged crime. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. When interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, he at that stage, also disclosed the role of the present revisionist in the murder of the deceased. The learned trial court has also expressed its view in clear terms that there is strong evidence against the present revisionist and there are chance of his conviction in the instant case. He is also liable to be tried with the other accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 394, 411 and I.P.C. and the learned trial court has not committed any mistake in considering the active role of the revisionist in the commission of the alleged crime of murder and in holding that he must be tried with the other accused persons who are already facing trial. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and revision deserved to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court 3 CRLR No. 1997 of 2021 dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the statement of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and the victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and the evidence of PW-1 informant was also recorded before the trial court wherein he has assigned active participation of the revisionist and other co-accused persons in the commission of crime. All the offences for which the revisionist was summoned, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

11. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned has not committed any error in summoning the revisionist. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

12. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 7, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

informant before the trial court to summon the present revisionist for facing trial under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C. alleging therein that during course of evidence, PW-1 informant has categorically stated that the revisionist Banti has also participated in the commission of crime and he is liable for facing the trial alongwith two co-accused persons who have been charge sheeted. The said application was partly allowed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly vide impugned order dated 19.03.2020.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent, 2 CRLR No. 1997 of 2021 he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that statements of the informant and other witnesses have been recorded wherein they have not supported the prosecution version. It is next submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer in which he has stated that the revisionist was not present on the spot. It is also submitted that the informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and his statement is based upon the statements of two eye witnesses namely Devendra and Karan and on their telephonic information, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant but their statements have not been recorded before the trial court. Cross-examination of PW-1 has also been completed. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly perverse and against the settled legal principles.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the instant revision and it has been submitted that PW-1 informant has been examined before the trial court and he has proved the active participation of the present revisionist in the commission of the alleged crime. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. When interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, he at that stage, also disclosed the role of the present revisionist in the murder of the deceased. The learned trial court has also expressed its view in clear terms that there is strong evidence against the present revisionist and there are chance of his conviction in the instant case. He is also liable to be tried with the other accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 394, 411 and I.P.C. and the learned trial court has not committed any mistake in considering the active role of the revisionist in the commission of the alleged crime of murder and in holding that he must be tried with the other accused persons who are already facing trial. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and revision deserved to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court 3 CRLR No. 1997 of 2021 dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the statement of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and the victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and the evidence of PW-1 informant was also recorded before the trial court wherein he has assigned active participation of the revisionist and other co-accused persons in the commission of crime. All the offences for which the revisionist was summoned, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

11. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned has not committed any error in summoning the revisionist. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

12. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 7, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad