HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6703 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court-I, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 667 of 2023 (State Vs. Manjeet Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby application 5Kha under Section 227 filed by the revisionist has been rejected and also against the order dated 10.06.2024, the charges under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act. were framed against the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders has vehemently argued that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and even the grounds for discharge and the arguments advanced in support thereof have not been mentioned by the learned trial Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ramesh Kumar Pandey Manjeet Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Court, so the orders are bad in the eye of law and the accused- revisionist is liable to be discharged as no offence against him is made out. It has also been argued that the medical evidence on record does not support the version of the prosecution. 4. Per contra learned AGA for the State has contended that the learned court below has gone through the evidence on record before considering the application and thereafter passed the impugned orders and observed that while passing the impugned orders that at the stage of framing charge against the accused in a criminal trial the Court is required only to see whether on the material/documents available in/with the case diary, sufficient grounds for framing charges exist or not? He further submitted that at this stage the Court is not required to meticulously weigh, analyse and appreciate the evidence and that the charges can be framed even on strong suspicion. 5. The revisionist have annexed the FIR, statement of opposite party no. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer with the revision. 6. I have gone through the records of the present case. From perusal of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is clear that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists for framing charges under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act. It is worth to mention that the discharge application is generally allowed in those cases where no evidence is collected during investigation which in any manner connect the accused persons with the commission of the alleged crime, but the instant case does not fall in this category. On perusal of the impugned orders it is found that in support of its findings the learned Judge has specifically held that from the statements of witnesses taken by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. a prima facie case is made out to frame charges for the offences punishable u/s 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act against the revisionist. CRLR No. 6703 of 2024 2 7. Thus, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality and perversity in the impugned orders and reasoning of learned trial court while dismissing the discharge application of the revisionist. Accordingly, present criminal revision is dismissed. October 28, 2025 SK Srivastava CRLR No. 6703 of 2024 3 (Tarun Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad