1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126935 Reserved on: 17.07.2025 Delivered on: 28.07.2025 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3930 of 2023 Revisionist :- Avichal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jigyasa Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Pathak,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.-6, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 30903 of 2018 (State Vs. Chheddi Lal) arising out of Case Crime No. 1053 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the discharge application dated 30.06.2023 filed by accused-revisionist in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by Court below. 2. I have heard Miss Jigyasa Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party-1 and Mr. Anil Kumar Pathak, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2. 3. Perused the record. 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by contending that the copy of the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been 2 brought on record. It is thus not evident from the record as to who have been nominated as prosecution witnesses therein. He has then taken the Court to the affidavit filed in support of present criminal revision and on basis thereof, he submits that there is no categorical averment giving description of the prosecution witnesses nominated in the charge sheet. Apart from above, the statements of prosecution witnesses so nominated in the charge sheet have also not been brought on record. No averment with regard to other material collected by the Investigating Officer and relied upon by the prosecution has been mentioned either. The copy of the same has also not been brought on record. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of above, the veracity of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by applicant cannot be examined by this Court with reference to the material on the record of concerned case. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein an injunction has been issued by the Apex Court itself that the veracity of the police report or other proceedings against accused cannot be examined in the absence of the material collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation and relied upon by the prosecution. Learned A.G.A. thus contended that in view of above, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this criminal revision are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to 3 entertain the present criminal revision. 7. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.07.2025 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad