HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1388 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the state respondents, and perused the record. 2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 14/11/2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ayodhya, in Criminal Case No.426 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 325, 308 IPC Police Station Gosaiganj, District Ayodhya, whereby the discharge application filed by the accused/ revisionist, has been rejected and a date has been fixed for appearance of the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the present case, an FIR lodged at the instance of Vinite Kumar Singh against the revisionist and one Happy Singh (non-revisionist) on 29/01/2023 at 12:08 hours, with the allegation that the accused persons committed house trespass by breaking open the door of house of the informant and assaulted him as well as his wife and son Rudra Pratap Singh and his younger Gulab Singh badly by sharp-edged weapon. After committing the offenses, they also threatened the informant and witnesses with their lives, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Alok Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Janardan Singh And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) and escaped by Wagon-R vehicle after committing the offenses. However, no date has been shown therein. The time of occurrence is shown as 5:00 p.m. and written report bears date 29/01/2023. None of the injured has received any grievous injury, as per their medical papers. In CT scan report for Dheeraj Kumar Singh, Gulab Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh also show no grievous or serious abnormality was found. 4. In statements of witnesses under section 161 CrPC, the date of occurrence is shown as 28/01/23. No specific role has been assigned to any of the revisionists in the said offense. The revisionist assailed the charge sheet filed in the present case along with a prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case by way of filing an application under Section 482 CrPC before this Court, but the said application was disposed of vide order dated 08/05/2024 with liberty granted to the revisionist to move an application for discharge through counsel before the trial court. 5. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the application in mechanical manner without application of mind. 6. Learned AGA submitted that the offense being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate was not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the discharge application, and therefore, he rightly rejected the same. 7. The charge under section in the present, cognizance has been taken by learned Magistrate inter alia for charge under Section 308 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the court of Session; a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a discharge application in respect of a session triable case. A discharge application in a case triable by court of Session, can only be entertained by the court of Sessions in exercise of power CRLR No. 1388 of 2025 2 under Section 227 Cr.P.C., where a Magistrate can entertain a discharge application in respect of an offense triable as a warrant trial under Section 239, CrPC, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate. No substantial error in the order passed by learned Magistrate while rejecting the application for discharge. However, it was incumbent on him to mention the reason that discharge application before him was not maintainable as such. 8. This Court, in order dated 04/05/2024, in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.42545 of 2024 had directed the revisionists to move an application for discharge before the trial court and not before the court of Magistrate, Therefore, it appears that the discharge application was filed before the committing court instead of Trial Court. The court of Session, can only cognizance of an offense under Section 193 Cr.P.C., only when it is committed by competent Magistrate. 9. In the present case, even the court of Sessions, the trial court could not entertain discharge application without the case being committed to it by competent Magistrate. Therefore, this revision deserves to be disposed of with the direction that the revisionists shall appear before the learned Magistrate within three weeks and submit a certified copy of this order before the learned Magistrate, who will, after ensuring the compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. commit the case through counsel to the court of Sessions at the earliest without waiting for enlargement of revisionists on bail. The revisionists shall on committal of case through counsel by the Magistrate, will appear before the court concerned through counsel and move the discharge application in light of the directions issued by this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. as stated above. CRLR No. 1388 of 2025 3 10. The learned trial court shall permit the revisionists to file the discharge application through counsel and decide the same in accordance with law. In case, discharge application is rejected by the trial court, I ie. Court of Sessions, revisionists will seek bail from the court concerned by filing appropriate bail application which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 11. The revision stands disposed off with above directions. December 2, 2025 KR CRLR No. 1388 of 2025 4 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench