HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5010 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. List revised. 2. None appeared for the revisionists even in the revised call. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present. 4. Since this is criminal revision and it can not be dismissed in default, but it to be decided on merit. 5. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Azamgarh, in Session Case No. 636 of 2024 (State Versus Budhai Maurya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 506, 325, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgrh, whereby learned court below has rejected the application of the revisionists bearing application No. 5Kha. 6. As per memo of revision in this case first information report was lodged against the revisionists with false allegation and in investigation, no witness stated about the involvement of the present revisionists for the commission of the offence. During the course of the investigation, independent witnesses account has been introduced by the investigating officer and after fifteen days, the revisionists were falsely implicated under Section 307 I.P.C. The investigating officer has acted upon the statements of the independent witnesses and without any support of the medical report, submitted charge Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jai Prakash Mishra Budhai Maurya And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) sheet in wrongful manner under Section 307 I.P.C. Earlier charge sheet bearing No. 303 of 2023, under Sections 325, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. was submitted after perusing the credible evidence available on record and subsequent charge sheet bearing No. 303A of 2023 was submitted without any evidence, only on the basis of statements of independent witnesses those are not corroborated with the medical report. It shows malafide intention of the investigating officer for the reason best known to them. Learned trial court has also not considered all these facts but passed the order in question illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 31.05.2025 and allow the revision. 7.Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contended that in this case the revisionists were named in the first information report and there is clear allegation against them for making assault by entering into the house of the informant, inflicting injuries to Shrikanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar Maurya on their head. The injuries on the person of the injured being serious, referred from Primary Health Center to District Hospital where they were provided treatment. The investigating officer has collected the sufficient material during the course of the investigation and then filed charge sheet. The injury was found on the right side of forehead of the Shrikanti Devi and other five injuries on her person. Likewise on the forehead of Rajesh Kumar Maurya, there were injuries on left side of skull and two other injuries were in the nature of contusion. In the X-ray report of the injured Rajesh Kumar Maurya, fracture was seen in left distal part of the second meta corpal bone. On the basis of the seriousness of the injuries on the person of the injured, the investigating officer filed charge sheet under Sections 325, 323, 452, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. At the stage of framing of the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen, but the scrutiny of the material is not possible as in the trial. Learned trial court has considered all these material on record and then passed the order in question since there is no illegality. 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, order dated 31.05.2025, it appears that revisionists were named in the first information report for causing injuries to the injured persons, namely Shrikanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar Maurya. During the course of medical examination, injuries were found on their head that is vital part of the body. There were some CRLR No. 5010 of 2025 2 other injuries on their person. On taking into account the injuries on the person of the injured, the statement of the informant and the injured persons and other witnesses, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet and learned trial court has also considered the material on record as collected during the course of investigation with a view to find out the prima facie case against the revisionists. At the stage of framing of the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen. The scrutiny of material is not required equal to the standard as during trial. Even on grave suspicion, charge can be framed. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, but this revision being devoid of merit, is dismissed. April 23, 2026 T.S. CRLR No. 5010 of 2025 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad