Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112309 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 585 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shankar Singh Kushwawha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the F.I.R. had been lodged with the delay of two days. It has further been argued that as per the version of the F.I.R., the victim suffered injury only in her finger whereas in injury report, there are three injuries out of which two are on legs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for revisionist has thus, argued that if all the allegations are taken together, it is apparent that the prosecution story, on its face, is absolutely false therefore, the revisionist is entitled for discharge from the offences in question. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the factual issues, raised by the revisionist in this criminal revision, can only be seen when the entire evidence is led before the trial court. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has further argued that at the stage of discharge, the evidence available before the trial court cannot be scrutinized in detail therefore, the grounds for discharge raised by the revisionist cannot be adjudicated either at the stage of considering the case for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. or by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the grounds raised by the revisionist in this revision, are in respect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the genuineness of the injury report. 7. This Court is of the view that both the grounds raised by the revisionist, in this revision, cannot be seen at the time of considering his case for discharge as the said grounds can only be seen and scrutinized by the trial court after the entire evidence is led before it. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi. 9. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad