HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2961 of 2024 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The revisionist Ramchet and four others have approached this court by means of present criminal revision challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Court No. 12, Azamgarh (herein above referred as trial court) in Complaint Case No. 3398 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 451 IPC, P.S. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh wherein the trial court has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists. 3. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 244 of Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant mentions the date and time of the incident as 01.05.2012 at 10.00 P.M. whereas in his statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the incident stated to have occurred at 08.05.2012 at 10.00 A.M. So, the time of incident becomes doubtful, thereby creating serious infirmities in the whole prosecution story. It is, therefore, contended that no charge can be framed against the revisionists. It is thus stated by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this court invoking the revisional jurisdictional. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, G.A. Ramchet And 4 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) have vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submitted that if there is any discrepancy regarding the date and time of incident, it must be determined only after conclusion of evidence before the court. No conclusive prove is required at this stage and has placed the reliance upon the judgement of State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police Station Bengaluru Vs. M.R. Hiremath 2019 AIR SC 2377 of para No. 23 which is quoted below: " 23. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of section 239 of the CrPC, 1973. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In the State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh Rajan 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 572: (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject; this Court held: "29...At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage." CRLR No. 2961 of 2024 2 5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that at the stage of giving consideration, the court has to only consider the papers of prosecution. Consideration on papers of defence at this stage is unwarranted. The same finding is based on the State of Karnataka (Supra). 6. In view of above, this court finds that the learned trial court has exercised its power, neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor caused any material illegality. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is accordingly dismissed. April 23, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 2961 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad