Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37501 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5362 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh,, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 428 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raebareli, in Criminal Case No. 16053 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.388 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli, whereby the application for discharge filed by the applicants has been rejected 3. The applicants had filed a Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2024 against the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2024 which has been rejected by means of a judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Session Judge Raebareli and validity of the revisional order has also been assailed in this application. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that even as per the F.I.R allegations, the alleged offecnes are not made out against the applicants as the F.I.R alleges that the informant's brother- co-accused Chhote Lal and co-accused persons Pradeep Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, sons of Chote Lal had got the informant's father Jagdish Prasad discharged from Simhans Hospital at about 11:05 AM on 26.03.2021. While he was seriously ill, they took her to the office of Sub-Registrar, Raebareli on the same day at 02:44 PM and got a Gift deed executed and registered in favour of Pradeep Kumar and Sandeep Kumar and thereafter they again got him admitted to the same hospital at 20:44 hours on 26.03.2021. The applicants were neither executant nor the beneficiary of the Gift deed and they had merely witnessed execution thereof. He further submitted that mere witnessing execution and registration of the Gift deed does not make out commission of any offence by the applicants. 5. The learned A.G.A has opposed the application and he has submitted that all the accused persons had taken the informant's ailing father to the Registrar Office after getting him discharged from hospital, all of them participated in getting the Gift deed executed by the ailing father of the informant and thereafter he was taken back to the hospital and got admitted again. In these circumstances, a case for trial of the applicants along with other accused persons is made out and it will be during the trial that a trial court will ascertain after scrutinizing the evidence led before it, as to which of the offences are made out against which of the accused persons. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not". 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application of the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the application lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench