HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1033 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed for the following main relief (s):- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that impugned order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur whereby in Criminal Case No. 7190 of 2023 (State v. Mujeeb and Ors.) arising out of First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 544 of 2023, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Sitapur under Sections 224, 511, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby the Learned Court has dismissed the Discharge Application of the Revisionist under Section 239 and Summoned the Applicant for framing of charge and all consequential proceedings, may kindly be quashed." 3. The revisionist has impeached the order dated 29.08.2025, passed in Criminal Case No.7190 of 2023 (State Vs. Mujeeb and others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2023, under Sections 224, 511, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District - Sitapur. The order dated 29.08.2025, is extracted herein under :- िदनांक-29.08.2025 पत्रावली अिभयुक्त िनितन कु मार गौतम की ओर से दािखल आवेदन अन्तगर्त धारा- 239दं०प्र०सं० आदेशाथर् प्रस्तुत हुयी। उभय पक्षों को पूवर् की ितिथ पर सुना जा चुका है। आवेदन को चािलत करते हुये अिभयुक्त को िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा यह कथन िकया गया है िक वह नामजद अिभयुक्त मुजीब अहमद का अिधवक्ता है। अिभयुक्त को इस बात के िलये नािमत िकया गया है िक वह मुजीब अहमद का अिधवक्ता है और उससे बात करते हुये पाया गया। अिभयुक्त िनदोर्ष है। उसके िवरुद्ध कोई आरोप गिठत नहीं होते है। आरोपपत्र से यह स्पष्ट नहीं है िक मुजीब अहमद की तलबी िकस व्यिक्त ने छेड़छाड़ की तथा अिभयुक्त मुजीब अहमद का नाम बढ़ाया। िववेचक द्वारा अिभयुक्तगण के हस्ताक्षर नमूना िलये गये थे, परन्तु उक्त हस्ताक्षर नमूने की परीक्षण िरपोटर् पत्रावली पर नहीं है और पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है िजससे उसके िवरूद्ध आरोप बनता हो। उसे के वल मात्र मुजीब अहमद के अिधवक्ता होने के नाते झूठा फं साया गया है। उसे आरोपों से उन्मोिचत िकये जाने की याचना की गयी है। Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Wali Nawaz Khan, Suryansh Singh Suryavanshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitin Kumar Gautam .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Cheif Secy. Home/Prin.Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) दूसरी तरह िवद्वान अिभयोजन अिधकारी द्वारा प्राथर्नापत्र का पुरजोर िवरोध िकया गया है तथा अिभयुक्त के िवरूद्ध आरोप गठन के िलये पयार्प्त साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर मौजूद होने का कथन िकया गया है। उभय पक्ष को सुना एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया। पत्रावली अवलोकन से िविदत होता है िक अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध अन्तगर्त धारा- 224,511,467,468,471,120बी, 420 भा०दं०सं० में आरोप पत्र प्रेिषत िकया गया है तथा उन्हीं धाराओं में अन्य सह अिभयुक्तों के साथ अपराध का प्रसंज्ञान िलया गया है। आवेदक के द्वारा जो तथ्य अपने प्राथर्ना पत्र में उन्मोचन के आधार हेतु िलये गये है वह साक्ष्य के स्तर पर िवचार योग्य है। न्यायालय के मत में अिभयुक्त की ओर से दािखल उन्मोचन आवदेन स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य नहीं है। आदेश अिभयुक्त िनितन कु मार गौतम की ओर से िदया गया उन्मोचन आवेदन अन्तगर्त धारा- 239दं०प्र०सं० िनरस्त िकया जाता है। पत्रावली वास्ते आरोप िवरचन िदनाँक 12.09.2025 को पेश हो। 4. The order has been challenged on various grounds including that the order is a non speaking as various aspect of the case pleaded in the application seeking discharge dated 25.08.2025 have not been considered for coming to the conclusion. The trial court has also not recorded the reasons, which are heart beat of an order, which ought to have been recorded. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that the discharge is a valuable right of the revisionist and the trial court ought not have rejected the application seeking discharge in a cursory manner. 5. On the issue of recording of reasons reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in the case of Basudev Dutta Vs. The State of West Bengal, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3616. 6. On the issue of dealing with the discharge application reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2022) 15 SCC 720. The relevant paragraph is quoted here under :- "15. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be." 7. Upon due consideration of the order quoted above as also the application seeking discharge (Annexed at Page Nos. 125 to 130 with this revision), it is apparent that the impugned order is non speaking order as for coming to the conclusion the reasons as required according to law settled have not been recorded by the trial court while CRLR No. 1033 of 2025 2 rejecting the discharge application after considering allegations leveled in the FIR, evidence available against the revisionist and the grounds seeking discharge.Therefore, this court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. 9. The order dated 29.08.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No.7190 of 2023 (State Vs. Mujeeb and others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of 2023, under Sections 224, 511, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 420 I.P.C., at Police Station Kotwali, District - Sitapur is hereby set aside. 10. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate/Court concerned for passing order afresh on the application of the applicant seeking discharge, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as indicated above. September 15, 2025 ML/- CRLR No. 1033 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench