HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4316 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist and other accused persons vide Case Crime No. 0004 of 2022 under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer, without conducting a thorough investigation, submitted the charge sheet in a routine manner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. The revisionist filed a discharge application, which has been rejected; hence, the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist and other accused persons on 01.01.2022 at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0004 of 2022 under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C. He has also submitted that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Shivani Gaud against the revisionist and others (father and brother of Smt. Shivani) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 254 of 2024 and is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the criminal revision. 4. In the said complaint, it is stated that when Shivani, along with her husband (Hemendra Sharma), father-in-law (Dinesh Chandra Sharma), and sister-in-law (Bhawna Sharma), went to their native place on 25.02.2024 at about 4:00 P.M., the accused persons started abusing and beating her Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Jitendra Pratap Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Tiwari, G.A. Kapil Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) husband and father-in-law. The incident in the said Complaint Case No. 254 of 2024 is shown to have occurred on 25.02.2024 at about 4:00 P.M. However, on that date the revisionist (Kapil) was appearing in the Engineering Assistant Trainee (EAT) examination which was scheduled in Delhi from 9:30 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. A copy of the admit card is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this revision. Thereafter, the complainant Smt. Shivani filed an application stating that she was not interested in continuing the said complaint; hence, it was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 28.06.2024 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh, which is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said F.I.R. has been lodged on false, fabricated and concocted grounds against the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also filed a certificate issued by Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, from the office of the Proctor dated 07.05.2025, which verifies as follows: "This is to certify that Mr. Kapil Kumar was bonafide student of this university in the academic session 2021- 22 to 2023-24 of the class B.Sc. (Chemistry Hons.) bearing Enrolment No. GJ-4719, Faculty No. 21CHBSA405 as per record of the AMU, Aligarh was present in Sir Ross Masood Hall on 31.12.2021 at 11:35 pm to evening of the 01.01.2022 which may be verified from the Main Gate Registrar of the R. M. Hall and also cross verified by the concerned department of the student. It is also mention here that Mr. Kapil Kumar was my student since 2019 to 2021 and I found that he is very sincere, dedicated, hardworking and punctual student. It is further certified that as per record of Proctor Office there is no any adverse report/case/enquiry pending against him." 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the marriage of the sister of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2, and hence the present F.I.R. has been filed against him on absolutely false, fabricated and concocted grounds. Opposite party no. 2 wants to create undue pressure upon the revisionist. Previously also a complaint was filed on false, fabricated and concocted grounds, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the complainant Shivani under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed the present case on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted allegations. CRLR No. 4316 of 2025 2 8. It is certified by the Proctor of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, that the revisionist Kapil Kumar was present from 31.12.2021 at 11:35 P.M. until the evening of 01.01.2022 at Sir Ross Masood Hall within the campus of AMU, Aligarh. Hence, it could not have been possible for him to commit any offence on 01.01.2022 at 8:00 A.M. at a place which is 15–20 kilometres away from Sir Ross Masood Hall, AMU, Aligarh. There is previous enmity between the parties. 9. It is settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. Previously also a false and fabricated criminal complaint was filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn. 10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2022 (5) SCC 720 by Three Judges Bench,(Authored by Hon. Surya Kant, J) held as under:- "12. At the outset, we may note that the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under section 397 of Cr.P.C. The High Court did not examine the issue in detail to find out whether the continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law in this case. The impugned order cites the decision of this Court in Asian Resurfacing (supra) wherein it was noted as under: "Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C.or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter." 13. It appears to us that while limiting the scope of a criminal revision to jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court apparently underappreciated the Judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra). We say so at least for two reasons. First, the material facts in the abovecited case dealt with a challenge to the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("POCA"). The cited judgment itself enlightens that not only is POCA a special legislation, but also contains a specific bar under Section 19 against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Second, This Court in Asian Resurfacing (Supra) while expressing concern regarding the need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in our criminal law system, followed the ratio laid down in an earlier decision in Madhu Limaye V. CRLR No. 4316 of 2025 3 State of Maharashtra as can be seen from the following extract: " 27. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482 CrPC, the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely an interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2) CrPC or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in a exceptional situation." 14. In Madhu Limaye (supra), this Court authoritatively held:- "9... Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or the evidence adduced in Court. 10. ....Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercises for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. 15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, this Court in the abovecited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should CRLR No. 4316 of 2025 4 be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law. 16. 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. It is also held that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused." 11. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2026 INSC 141. In paragraph no. 21 it held as under:- "Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercise by default or out of caution alone. When the material placed before the Court, take at the face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law expects the Court to have the clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case aside." 12. There is reasonable and lawful force in the contentions, averments and submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 13. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside accordingly in respect of the revisionist Kapil Kumar only. The learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order. 14. The criminal revision is hereby allowed. March 16, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 4316 of 2025 5 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad