Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73285 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1731 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vijay Shanker Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record. 2-The order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 536 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2022, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 504, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 7A/13 P.C. Act, Police Station Babhani, District Varanasi, whereby discharge application of revisionists has been rejected fixing 11.01.2025 for framing of charge, is the subject matter of challenge in the present criminal revision. 3-Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists are Village Pradhan and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Since co-accused Rajesh Kumar, who was Village Development Officer, has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, therefore, the criminal proceedings against revisionists are also liable to be quashed and revisionists are liable to be discharged. The trial court has committed legal error in rejecting their discharge application without considering their defence. 4-At the outset, learned A.G.A. pointed out that there is no stay order in this case and after rejection of discharge application of the revisionists vide impugned order dated 03.01.2025, charges have been framed against the revisionists on 05.03.2024 and they are facing trial. 5-Learned counsel for the revisionists does not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. for the State. 6-Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 has already been given effect and charges have been framed against the revisionists as noted above. The defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of deciding discharge application. The Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179 has held that after framing of charge, the question of discharge does not arise. The said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another, (1989) 1 SCC 715 and recently in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819. Considering the stage of trial as noted above, this Court is also of the view that once the charges are framed, accused is put to trial and thereafter the accused may either be acquitted or convicted but he cannot be discharged. The discharge post framing of charge is not recognized in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also well settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge. 7-In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 03.01.2025. 8-The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad