Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21497 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2940 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Raj And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Nayak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. 1. Sri Prem Prakash Singh, Advocate has filed Power on behalf of the opposite party No.2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 3. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2023, arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.261 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramraj And Others) under Sections 147, 323, 325, 308 IPC registered at Police Station- Malipur, District- Ambedkar Nagar. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that an FIR registering Case Crime No.261 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 147 IPC was registered against the applicants on the information of opposite party No.2. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 147, 323, 325, 308 IPC. The applicants filed a discharge application claiming that no offence was made out against the applicants under Section 308 IPC. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 03.02.2025. The applicants have prayed that the order dated 03.02.2025 be set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR/ Case Crime be quashed. 5. A perusal of the records available with this Court indicates that opposite party No. 2 and his family members were assaulted with bricks, rods and lathi (wooden stick) by the applicants. The family members of the applicant No. 2 were injured. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court has rejected the application of the applicants on the ground that at the stage of framing charges, the veracity of the evidence produced cannot be considered. The trial court has taken note of the fact that the assertion in the FIR that the applicants had assaulted the opposite party No.2 and his family members with intention to kill was supported by the statement of the opposite parties. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the trial court. 6. The counsel for the applicant has argued that that the doctor who had examined the opposite party No.2 and his family members has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that the injuries suffered by the opposite party No.2 and his family members were simple in nature. 7. It is sufficient to state here that the expert evidence is not conclusive and it would be the discretion of the trial court to consider the nature of the injuries while passing the final judgment in the case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench