Cr.P.C. This Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala Anr, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power

: Raj Kumar Singh : G.A., Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Raju Kumar Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2025 (State Vs. Ravindra Yadav and others), arising out of case crime no. 109 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, police station Devgaon, District Azamgarh whereby the application no. 9 kha was rejected and the case was fixed for framing of charge against the accused.

3. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is only appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. This Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. and held thus: - "10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under: "227. Discharge. ? If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and without application of the judicial mind. He has submitted that trial court did not consider the injury report along with X-ray report, while considering the discharge application. No offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the revisionists. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karan Talwar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2 CRLR No. 4289 of 2025 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803.Therefore, the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 is liable to be set aside and the revision be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. contended that from bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The FIR of the said incident dated 22.3.2024 at 5 p.m. was lodged on the same day at 13:29 hours under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC against Ravindra Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Asha Yadav & Archana Yada/revisionists/accused. The revisionists and the complainant are related with same family. The allegation made by the complainant that all the accused persons were trying to take forcible possession of her land and when resisted they abused her and beaten her with fists and legs. She suffered injuries in her body. Thereafter they ran away and she came to the police station for filing the report. She also alleges that she had suffered serious injuries in her head and became unconscious. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all the revisionists under Sections 308, 323, ,504, 506, 325 IPC.

7. Statement of complainant/Sushma Yadav was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the date of incident. She reiterated the same allegations as mentioned by her in the first information report. The medical examination of the injured/Sushma Yadav/complainant took place on 22.3.2024 at 10.20 a.m. at Combined Hospital, Lalganj, Azamgarh. The injuries of the complainant are as under: (1) Lacerated injury of size 4.5.cm. x 0.5cm present over occipital region of head 13 cm above upper margin of posterior aspect of neck. Fresh blood present over lacerated wound. (2) Lacerated injury of size 3 x .05cm present over occipital region of head 7 cm above upper margin posterior aspect of neck. Fresh blood ooze from injury site. (3) C/o Pain & swelling (Diffuse) present over (R) elbow extend in to distal (R) arm. colour of bruise is red. (4) C/o pain & diffuse swelling at (R) wrist colour is red. (5) Abrasion of size 3 x 2cm present over (R) side of lower back just lateral to lumber vertebra 7 cm above posterio superior ili14.10.2025ac spine. colour is red. (6) Contusion of size 7 x 6 cm present over upper (L) side of back region colour of bruise is red.

8. It is true and correct that as per X-ray report of the injured-Sushma Yadav, there was NAD was found in skull and right arm elbow whereas in the right forearm wrist fracture seen in right lower part of radious. Whereas as per the 3 CRLR No. 4289 of 2025 injury report, there were two lacerated injuries on the occipital region of head i.e. injury no. 1 and injury no. 2. The head is a vital part of the body and it may become dangerous to the life of the injured. As per the dictionary, occipital bone is a single bone at the back and base of the skull that protects the brain stem and the back of the brain, including the occipital lobe and cerebellum. It features a large central opening called the foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord to pass through to connect with the brain. The occipital bone also provides attachment points for muscles and ligaments. There is no doubt that the injured has suffered head injury, but in the X-ray report no fracture was found in the head. The nature of the injury particularly on the head, it could be fatal; there is no barometer to check the fatality; when injury caused on skull.

9. In view thereof, there is no sufficient material to discharge the revisionists/accused persons under Section 308 IPC. It is also pertinent to mention here that after passing the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 which is challenged under this revision, the trial court had also framed charges under Sections 308, 323, 504,506, 325 IPC against all the accused persons on 22.5.2024. The certified copy has been annexed as Annexure-6 to this criminal revision. No final finding could be given on the question of facts at the revision stage. The final finding would be given by the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence produced before it; no prejudice should be caused to the revisionist, on the basis of this order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.) MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Raj Kumar Singh : G.A., Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Raju Kumar Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

2. The instant revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2025 (State Vs. Ravindra Yadav and others), arising out of case crime no. 109 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, police station Devgaon, District Azamgarh whereby the application no. 9 kha was rejected and the case was fixed for framing of charge against the accused.

3. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is only appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. This Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. and held thus: - "10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under: "227. Discharge. ? If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and without application of the judicial mind. He has submitted that trial court did not consider the injury report along with X-ray report, while considering the discharge application. No offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the revisionists. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karan Talwar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2 CRLR No. 4289 of 2025 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803.Therefore, the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 is liable to be set aside and the revision be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. contended that from bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The FIR of the said incident dated 22.3.2024 at 5 p.m. was lodged on the same day at 13:29 hours under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC against Ravindra Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Asha Yadav & Archana Yada/revisionists/accused. The revisionists and the complainant are related with same family. The allegation made by the complainant that all the accused persons were trying to take forcible possession of her land and when resisted they abused her and beaten her with fists and legs. She suffered injuries in her body. Thereafter they ran away and she came to the police station for filing the report. She also alleges that she had suffered serious injuries in her head and became unconscious. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all the revisionists under Sections 308, 323, ,504, 506, 325 IPC.

7. Statement of complainant/Sushma Yadav was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the date of incident. She reiterated the same allegations as mentioned by her in the first information report. The medical examination of the injured/Sushma Yadav/complainant took place on 22.3.2024 at 10.20 a.m. at Combined Hospital, Lalganj, Azamgarh. The injuries of the complainant are as under: (1) Lacerated injury of size 4.5.cm. x 0.5cm present over occipital region of head 13 cm above upper margin of posterior aspect of neck. Fresh blood present over lacerated wound. (2) Lacerated injury of size 3 x .05cm present over occipital region of head 7 cm above upper margin posterior aspect of neck. Fresh blood ooze from injury site. (3) C/o Pain & swelling (Diffuse) present over (R) elbow extend in to distal (R) arm. colour of bruise is red. (4) C/o pain & diffuse swelling at (R) wrist colour is red. (5) Abrasion of size 3 x 2cm present over (R) side of lower back just lateral to lumber vertebra 7 cm above posterio superior ili14.10.2025ac spine. colour is red. (6) Contusion of size 7 x 6 cm present over upper (L) side of back region colour of bruise is red.

8. It is true and correct that as per X-ray report of the injured-Sushma Yadav, there was NAD was found in skull and right arm elbow whereas in the right forearm wrist fracture seen in right lower part of radious. Whereas as per the 3 CRLR No. 4289 of 2025 injury report, there were two lacerated injuries on the occipital region of head i.e. injury no. 1 and injury no. 2. The head is a vital part of the body and it may become dangerous to the life of the injured. As per the dictionary, occipital bone is a single bone at the back and base of the skull that protects the brain stem and the back of the brain, including the occipital lobe and cerebellum. It features a large central opening called the foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord to pass through to connect with the brain. The occipital bone also provides attachment points for muscles and ligaments. There is no doubt that the injured has suffered head injury, but in the X-ray report no fracture was found in the head. The nature of the injury particularly on the head, it could be fatal; there is no barometer to check the fatality; when injury caused on skull.

9. In view thereof, there is no sufficient material to discharge the revisionists/accused persons under Section 308 IPC. It is also pertinent to mention here that after passing the impugned order dated 3.5.2025 which is challenged under this revision, the trial court had also framed charges under Sections 308, 323, 504,506, 325 IPC against all the accused persons on 22.5.2024. The certified copy has been annexed as Annexure-6 to this criminal revision. No final finding could be given on the question of facts at the revision stage. The final finding would be given by the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence produced before it; no prejudice should be caused to the revisionist, on the basis of this order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.) MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad