HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1090 of 2024 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Devika Kapoor, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 23658 of 2022 (State Vs. Rameshwar Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Alinagar, District Chandauli, whereby the discharge application dated 28.06.2023 moved by the revisionists has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in proceeding against the revisionists without properly considering the entire material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, without taking into consideration that the FIR was lodged in a casual manner and that the prosecution story, as set out therein, is incomplete and appears to have been concocted by the informant with an intention to pressurize the revisionists. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 I.P.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devika Kapoor, G.A., Pranjal Singh Rameshwar Singh And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) are not disclosed against the revisionists; however, the said aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Magistrate. 4. Per Contra, Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has considered the material available on record and has rightly rejected the discharge application. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the Court is required to examine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The jurisdiction of the Court at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge is limited. The Court is required only to examine the material placed before it for the purpose of determining whether the allegations and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the accused. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or to undertake a mini trial. 7. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned magistrate has considered the allegations made in the FIR as well as the material collected during investigation and has recorded a finding that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists that the FIR is false, concocted or has been lodged with an ulterior motive involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated at the stage of discharge. 8. The submission that the ingredients of Section 409 I.P.C. are not made out against the revisionists also cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether the necessary ingredients of the said offence are ultimately established against the revisionists is a matter which would require consideration on the basis of the evidence led during trial. At the stage of discharge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the material on record discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. CRLR No. 1090 of 2024 2 9. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or consideration of discharge application, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence as if it were conducting a trial. If, on the basis of the material available on record, a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists against the accused, the matter must be proceeded for the trial. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is rejected. 12. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 is hereby affirmed. 13. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein above are confined only to the adjudication of the present revision and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the stage of trial. September 8, 2026 Israr CRLR No. 1090 of 2024 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad