HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4807 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia by which the discharge application dated 18.06.2025 filed by the revisionist in Session Trial No. 532 of 2025 (State Versus Devendra Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagra, District Ballia has been rejected. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a first information report was lodged with false allegation under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C by the informant against the revisionist. He further submitted that during the medical examination, the doctor has opined that the injuries were caused with hard and blunt object, even though, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C., whereas no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out, even on the basis of nature of injuries. He further submitted that there was no intention to cause death of the injured by causing such type of injuries on his person, since injuries were on the back of victim. Learned trial court has not considered all these facts while passing the order on the discharge application, therefore, order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned trial court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is illegal and inappropriate and is liable to be set aside and revision Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ram Pravesh Yadav, Shashank Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeraj Singh Devendra Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) is to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid 5. On perusal of record, it transpires that in the first information report, the informant/injured himself mentioned that with intention to kill him, the accused made assault with an axe and inflicted the injuries on his back and incident was seen by Gandhi Yadav and Brij Kumar @ Bikku, who also came for rescue. The statements of the injured and other witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer in which they categorically stated that the injuries were caused with an axe by the revisionist to the injured. During the medical examination, the injury was found on left side of scapuler region and was in the nature of lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. It was referred for X-ray in which joint was found to be shifted as stated by the Dr. Sharad, who examined the inured at Primary Health Center and opined on X-ray report. At this stage the learned trial court has to make scrutiny of material on record with a view to form opinion regarding prima facie case, but such scrutiny is not expected as during the course of the trial. Learned trial court has taken into consideration the contents of the first information report, statements of witnesses, nature of injuries and the statement of the doctor while passing the order. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, but this revision being devoid of merit, is dismissed. April 23, 2026 T.S. CRLR No. 4807 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad