State Of U.P And Another v. Party

kill opened fire which inflicted Saurabh and his second fire missed. Meanwhile, when the public persons came over 2 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 there, they fled away. Both the parties were having some previous dispute regarding a passage and Jasveer Singh and Veer Singh were the eye witnesses of the incident. The injured persons were taken to hospital and medically examined but however no x-ray was performed. When the police refused to lodge the report, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved. It is also mentioned in the said application that F.I.R. in a cross case filed by accused persons as case crime no. 349 of 2023, P.S. Chandpur registered running investigation. However, the said application U/S 156(3) CrPC was treated as a complaint case and on the basis of the evidence of complainant Shubham Kumar under Section 200 CrPC and evidence of PW-1 (Nepal Singh), PW-2 (Smt. Kusum), PW-3 (Veer Singh), PW-4 (Nigam Singh), PW-5 (Dr. Ankit Chaudhary) and other documents the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. Against the said order the complainant filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor who remanded the matter again to the Magistrate concerned, who in the light of the directions of the Revisional Court, summoned the accused Keshav to face trial for the offence under Sections 452, 307, 323, 504 IPC and the rest accused persons Jai Karan Singh, Reshav, Vimlesh and Rajveer Singh for the offence under Sections 323, 452, 504 IPC. The said summoning order was challenged by way of criminal revision which was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bijnor. The revisionist moved the discharge application which was rejected by the same Court by the impugned order, hence, this criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The Magistrate concerned summoned her to face trial for the offence under Sections 323, 452, 504 IPC on the basis of insufficient evidence against her. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention as a counter blast as the complainant party has been made accused in the F.I.R. lodged by Hari Raj, brother-in-law of the 3 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 revisionist, regarding the murder of his son Saurabh. Nepal Singh, Smt. Kusum and Nigam Singh, who are the witness in the complaint case moved against the present revisionist and other accused persons, are named accused persons in the said F.I.R. under Sections 302, 307, 352 and 34 IPC. The injuries sustained by the injured persons are fabricated and superficial and no x-ray was performed. It is also submitted that no specific role in the commission of alleged offence has been assigned to the present revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that case crime no. 349 of 2023 under Sections 302, 307, 352, 34 IPC, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor was lodged by the informant Hari Raj alleging therein that the accused persons Nepal, Nigam and Smt. Kusum committed murder of his son Saurabh by making assault upon him with lathi danda, sharp edged weapon and firearm and he died by firearm injury caused by accused Nigam and some family members were also sustained injuries and in the said case after investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the three named accused persons and they are facing trial. To make a forged defence in a case the present criminal proceeding was initiated on behalf of Shubham Kumar, who is the son of accused Nepal Singh in the aforesaid case with false allegations and a imaginary story. It is further submitted that the medical evidence nowhere corroborates the prosecution story in this case and surprisingly a supplementary medical report was also prepared without performing any x-ray of the injured.

7. Per contra, the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and 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 4 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 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. 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.

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.

9. The parameters for framing of charge and discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. 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 at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

10. 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. 5 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025

11. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. A co-joint reading of the judicial pronouncements passed in 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 clarifies that the Court at the stage of framing of charge 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 .

12. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the story set-up by the revisionist cannot be taken as a true story at this juncture by this Court. It is true that charge sheet was submitted in the case which was lodged against accused Nepal, Nigam and Smt. Kusum and the present complainant Shubham happens to be the son of accused Nigam in that case but in the instant case also there is prima facie evidence against the present revisionist which is made out on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC of the complainant and the witnesses supported by the medical evidence as well. The said statements also reveal prima facie that place of occurrence in this case was the house of the complainant. The objection regarding the supplementary medical report without being any x-ray report on record is also worthless at this stage because summoning order against the revisionist has been passed under Section 323 IPC, which does not require even an injury report. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence produced before the Court concerned. From a perusal of the material available on record and 6 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 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 did not err 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 and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

kill opened fire which inflicted Saurabh and his second fire missed. Meanwhile, when the public persons came over 2 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 there, they fled away. Both the parties were having some previous dispute regarding a passage and Jasveer Singh and Veer Singh were the eye witnesses of the incident. The injured persons were taken to hospital and medically examined but however no x-ray was performed. When the police refused to lodge the report, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was moved. It is also mentioned in the said application that F.I.R. in a cross case filed by accused persons as case crime no. 349 of 2023, P.S. Chandpur registered running investigation. However, the said application U/S 156(3) CrPC was treated as a complaint case and on the basis of the evidence of complainant Shubham Kumar under Section 200 CrPC and evidence of PW-1 (Nepal Singh), PW-2 (Smt. Kusum), PW-3 (Veer Singh), PW-4 (Nigam Singh), PW-5 (Dr. Ankit Chaudhary) and other documents the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. Against the said order the complainant filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor who remanded the matter again to the Magistrate concerned, who in the light of the directions of the Revisional Court, summoned the accused Keshav to face trial for the offence under Sections 452, 307, 323, 504 IPC and the rest accused persons Jai Karan Singh, Reshav, Vimlesh and Rajveer Singh for the offence under Sections 323, 452, 504 IPC. The said summoning order was challenged by way of criminal revision which was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bijnor. The revisionist moved the discharge application which was rejected by the same Court by the impugned order, hence, this criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The Magistrate concerned summoned her to face trial for the offence under Sections 323, 452, 504 IPC on the basis of insufficient evidence against her. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention as a counter blast as the complainant party has been made accused in the F.I.R. lodged by Hari Raj, brother-in-law of the 3 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 revisionist, regarding the murder of his son Saurabh. Nepal Singh, Smt. Kusum and Nigam Singh, who are the witness in the complaint case moved against the present revisionist and other accused persons, are named accused persons in the said F.I.R. under Sections 302, 307, 352 and 34 IPC. The injuries sustained by the injured persons are fabricated and superficial and no x-ray was performed. It is also submitted that no specific role in the commission of alleged offence has been assigned to the present revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that case crime no. 349 of 2023 under Sections 302, 307, 352, 34 IPC, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor was lodged by the informant Hari Raj alleging therein that the accused persons Nepal, Nigam and Smt. Kusum committed murder of his son Saurabh by making assault upon him with lathi danda, sharp edged weapon and firearm and he died by firearm injury caused by accused Nigam and some family members were also sustained injuries and in the said case after investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the three named accused persons and they are facing trial. To make a forged defence in a case the present criminal proceeding was initiated on behalf of Shubham Kumar, who is the son of accused Nepal Singh in the aforesaid case with false allegations and a imaginary story. It is further submitted that the medical evidence nowhere corroborates the prosecution story in this case and surprisingly a supplementary medical report was also prepared without performing any x-ray of the injured.

7. Per contra, the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and 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 4 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 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. 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.

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.

9. The parameters for framing of charge and discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. 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 at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

10. 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. 5 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025

11. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. A co-joint reading of the judicial pronouncements passed in 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 clarifies that the Court at the stage of framing of charge 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 .

12. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the story set-up by the revisionist cannot be taken as a true story at this juncture by this Court. It is true that charge sheet was submitted in the case which was lodged against accused Nepal, Nigam and Smt. Kusum and the present complainant Shubham happens to be the son of accused Nigam in that case but in the instant case also there is prima facie evidence against the present revisionist which is made out on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC of the complainant and the witnesses supported by the medical evidence as well. The said statements also reveal prima facie that place of occurrence in this case was the house of the complainant. The objection regarding the supplementary medical report without being any x-ray report on record is also worthless at this stage because summoning order against the revisionist has been passed under Section 323 IPC, which does not require even an injury report. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence produced before the Court concerned. From a perusal of the material available on record and 6 CRLR No. 5450 of 2025 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 did not err 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 and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad