State of U.P v. Digvijay Singh Bauwa Thakur Raja Sahab), arising out of Case Crime No

explanation of delay. It is further submitted that the revisionist challenged the F.I.R. by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5057 of 2018 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

27.02.2018 stayed the arrest of the revisionist till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that after 2 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Dinesh Singh @ Pahalwan, Rohit, Sumit under Sections 323, 353, 307, 120-B I.P.C. but charge sheet was not submitted against the revisionist and after further investigation, the name of the revisionist came into light. It is next submitted that in another case being case Crime No. 753 of 2017, under Sections 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, one Pratap Singh lodged an F.I.R. against Rahul Trivedi in which the name of the revisionist was also disclosed. The revisionist challenged the said F.I.R. before this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 20.03.2018 stayed the arrest of the revisionist till submission of police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist and co-accused Vijay Verma by way of supplementary charge sheet, upon which the court concerned took cognizance.

5. It is further submitted that the revisionist filed Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10868 of 2019 (Digvijay Singh @ Bauwa Thakur @ Raja Sahab Vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court and this Court granted interim protection to the revisionist vide order dated 05.04.2019. Thereafter the revisionist was granted bail by the court concerned. It is next submitted that the revisionist filed discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 433 of 2021 which was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.11.2021. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the investigation of this case was conducted in the right and genuine manner by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist upon which cognizance was taken. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate/Court 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. 3 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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.

8. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

9. 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.

10. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court 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 4 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 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).

11. So far as the case in hand is concerned, during investigation the name of the revisionist came into picture and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist upon which cognizance was taken by the court concerned. All the offences for which discharge application was rejected, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

12. 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. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the revisionist during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. 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.

13. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 8, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

explanation of delay. It is further submitted that the revisionist challenged the F.I.R. by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5057 of 2018 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

27.02.2018 stayed the arrest of the revisionist till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that after 2 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Dinesh Singh @ Pahalwan, Rohit, Sumit under Sections 323, 353, 307, 120-B I.P.C. but charge sheet was not submitted against the revisionist and after further investigation, the name of the revisionist came into light. It is next submitted that in another case being case Crime No. 753 of 2017, under Sections 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, one Pratap Singh lodged an F.I.R. against Rahul Trivedi in which the name of the revisionist was also disclosed. The revisionist challenged the said F.I.R. before this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 20.03.2018 stayed the arrest of the revisionist till submission of police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist and co-accused Vijay Verma by way of supplementary charge sheet, upon which the court concerned took cognizance.

5. It is further submitted that the revisionist filed Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10868 of 2019 (Digvijay Singh @ Bauwa Thakur @ Raja Sahab Vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court and this Court granted interim protection to the revisionist vide order dated 05.04.2019. Thereafter the revisionist was granted bail by the court concerned. It is next submitted that the revisionist filed discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 433 of 2021 which was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.11.2021. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the investigation of this case was conducted in the right and genuine manner by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist upon which cognizance was taken. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate/Court 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. 3 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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.

8. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

9. 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.

10. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court 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 4 CRLR No. 950 of 2022 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).

11. So far as the case in hand is concerned, during investigation the name of the revisionist came into picture and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist upon which cognizance was taken by the court concerned. All the offences for which discharge application was rejected, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

12. 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. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the revisionist during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. 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.

13. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed. October 8, 2025 Rmk. (Chawan Prakash,J.) RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad