Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138462 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12618 of 2024 Appellant :- Babu Omrey Alias Shribabu Omrey And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajatshatru Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 whereby the discharge applicant moved by the applicants/appellants has been rejected and also the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 whereby the charge has been framed against the appellants in Sessions Case No. 1756 of 2023 (State Vs Babu Omrey and others) in Case Crime No. 406 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 504, 354 354-B IPC and Section 3(1) da/dha, 3(2)5-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the application 28Ka moved by the appellants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. whereby they have prayed to the court to pass discharge order in favour of the appellants in the aforesaid matter. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that the present prosecution of the applicants at the hands of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the applicants. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is made out from the allegations set out in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2. 5. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge is wholly illegal, capricious and against weight of evidence on record. He has further submitted that it transpires that order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has contended that charges have now been framed by the order and the discharge application moved by the appellants have also been rejected and the same does not suffer from any error of law and moreover in case the applicants have any grievance, they will have various opportunities for redressal of their grievance during course of trial. 7. Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court and discharge the accused appellants but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charge.. The impugned orders passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant no interference by this Court. 8. Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of appellants. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 RavindraKSingh Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad