HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 404 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. (C.M.Application No.- 1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant on the application for condonation of delay. 2. Reason is sufficient to condone the delay indicated in the affidavit filed in support of application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. Order on Revision 1. Heard. 2. The present revision has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IVth, Room No. 28, District - Lucknow in Case No. 47967 of 2020 titled as 'State Versus Ram Kumar Dwivedi And Others' arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No. 84 of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : O.P. Tiwari, Aman Pandey, Ashish Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi @ Vijay Kumar And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 2020, Under Sections 323, 506, 147, 504, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Nagram, District - Lucknow, in the interest of justice." 3. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2/injured Shiv Shankar on 23.05.2020 registered as FIR No. 0084 of 2020, under Sections 323/506/147/504/452 IPC, Police Station-Nagram, District- Lucknow, against four persons namely Vijay Kumar Dwivedi alias Vijay Kumar/revisionist no.1, Ram Kumar Dwivedi/revisionist no.2, Jaickie Dwivedi/revisionist no.3, Durgesh Kumar Dwivedi alias Durgesh Kumar/revisionist no.4. 4. During investigation, after loding of FIR, the injured persons were medically examined, as appears from the record, in terms of letter dated 23.05.2020 of In-Charge, Police Station-Nagram, District-Lucknow. 5. Injured Shiv Shankar s/o Bhuiyadeen and Priya Sharma d/o Shiv Shankar, sustained injuries, which is evident from the injury report(s) of these persons annexed at page 55 and 60 of the paper book. 6. According to the statement of injured Shiv Shankar, recorded by the Investigating Officer, annexed at page 64 of the paperbook, the applicants assaulted him and his daughter namely Priya Sharma and the incident occurred in his house. 7. Impeaching the order dated 15.02.2025 passed in Case No. 47967 of 2020 (State Versus Ram Kumar Dwivedi and Others), whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, Room No. 28, District-Lucknow (in short 'Magistrate'), whereby the Magistrate rejected the application seeking discharge preferred by the revisionist, it is stated that initial case of the prosecution as indicated in the FIR was improved by the opposite party no.2/Shiv Shankar (injured) and Priya Sharma (injured) and this aspect of the case has not been considered by the Magistrate while passing the order impugned dated 15.02.2025. 8. 8. Per contra, Sri S.P. Tiwari learned A.G.A., says that FIR is not encyclopedia and as such in not considering the improvement during investigation, the Magistrate has not committed any error or illegality. He further stated that testimony of injured witness is having greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CRLRD No. 404 of 2025 2 the case (s) of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191 and Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 and in this view of the matter the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. Prayer is to dismiss the present revision. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053; State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294; Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582; Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781, with regard to dealing with an application seeking discharge. 10. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, particularly the statement of injured persons namely Shiv Shankar and Priya Sharma this Court finds no force in the present revision. 11. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. August 25, 2025 Jyoti/- CRLRD No. 404 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench