HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/complainant. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 30.3.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session Case No. 384 of 2024 ( State Vs. Ashok Puri and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi, whereby discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.3.2024 is not justifiable and it is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that under the provisions of Section 108 IPC, no case comes under the purview of abetter, so no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. He has submitted that ingredients of Section 107, 108 IPC does not attract the version as laid down in the FIR so it can be said that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge without going through the definition of the abettor as laid down under Section 108 IPC, has passed the impugned order which is illegal and arbitrary. In the entire case diary, there is no allegation against the revisionist by which it can be said that the revisionist has abetted to the deceased to commit suicide. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Sunil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Awadhesh Prasad, G.A. Ashok Puri .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the occurrence took place on 28.2.2023 when during the election period it has been alleged that the revisionist has assaulted to the deceased and after three days on 1.3.2023, the deceased gone in the forest and commit suicide. The mobile phone of the deceased has been sent for forensic laboratory, Agra, where the mobile has been returned to the Investigating Officer with the reason that at Agra Laboratory, there is no facility for checking of the mobile audio or video. Thereafter, the mobile has been sent at Forensic Laboratory, Lucknow for investigation and till today, no report has been received although there is a specific allegation that before committing suicide, the deceased has prepared the photographs of his suicide by his own mobile. The postmortem report and the statement of the doctor clearly stated that the deceased has committed suicide and there is no injury on the body of the deceased. 5. The FIR of the said incident was lodged promptly without any unreasonable delay under Section 306 IPC by the opposite party no.2/complainant against (1) Ashok Puri, (2) Pankaj Giri, (3) Dwarika Puri and (4) Ramesh Puri. The revisionist/Ashok Puri is named in the said FIR. There has been specific allegation against the revisionist/Ashok Puri. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the allegation made in the FIR are not specifically constitute an offence under section 306 IPC. 7. After a detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons under Section 306 IPC. It is also submitted before this Court that discharge application has been rejected on 30.3.2023 and on the same day, charges have also been framed. 8. Learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have submitted that the charges are already framed, hence the present criminal revision is not maintainable. 9. Learned trial court has passed a detail order that the deceased has been mal-treated and he was also a candidate for bye-election and he suffered a slap and thereafter, he feels very much humiliated and in continuation of CRLR No. 2126 of 2024 2 that humiliation, he committed suicide. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied on law laid down by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2183 of 2021 (Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and another) connected with Application U/S 482 No. 13664 of 2021 (Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 25.10.2021. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied on paragraph no. 33 of the said judgment "that apart from above, when framing of charge order is examined in the light of ambit and scope of Section 228 Cr.P.C as defined by Apex Court in aforementioned judgment, this Court is of considered opinion that at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against applicant/revisionist. Arguments raised on behalf of applicant/revisionist, the submissions urged by the learned AGA and Mr. S.N. Singh, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 will all have to be considered to decide the correctness of order dated 4.9.2021. This exercise will itself amount to mini trial, which is not permissible, while deciding the correctness of an order passed in terms of Section 228 Cr.P.C. For the facts and reasoned noted above, this Court dismissed the said revision. 11. In view of all consideration of facts and circumstances and provisions of law, no meticulous appreciation of evidence which amounts to mini trial is permissible at this stage. The charge sheet has been filed after due investigation. Learned trial court has filed prima facie case and already framed charges and dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionist. 12. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order dated 30.3.2024. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. February 24, 2026 sfa/ CRLR No. 2126 of 2024 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad