Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56343 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1790 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shishupal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gyan Prakash Mishra,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2025 (State Vs. Shishupal) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offences in question, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that there has been some dispute in respect of the money transaction in between the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 and only for that reason, Opposite Party No. 2 had falsely implicated the revisionist in the present criminal case. It has further been contended that even the revisionist has filed an affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district concerned, bringing in his notice, the aforesaid possibility of lodging of false criminal case against him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that once the revisionist has already submitted an affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police putting him on notice that there is possibility of lodging false criminal case against him, it is a good ground for discharge of the revisionist but the trial court, in most arbitrary and illegal manner, had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C., for his discharge. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have argued that there are serious charges against the revisionist which are apparent from bare perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation and finding sufficient evidence against the revisionist regarding his involvement in the crime in question, had filed a charge-sheet on which, the competent court had already taken cognizance. It has further been argued that so far as the affidavit submitted by the revisionist before the Senior Superintendent of Police is concerned, that has been given after the date of incident and further that is his defence and it can be scrutinized and seen only when the defence evidence is led before the trial court. 6. Learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have vehemently argued that at the stage of discharge, as contemplated under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the trial court has very limited scope and only where, it is a case of no evidence or it is a case of apparent malicious prosecution, the trial court can pass order discharging the accused from the offences but in the present case, the Investigating Officer had found sufficient evidence against the revisionist which is on record before the trial court and further the issue of malicious prosecution raised by the revisionist is his after- thought and that can only be seen during the course of trial. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have submitted that this revision is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 9. The Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged F.I.R. against the revisionist under Sections 376, 328 & 506 I.P.C. The contents of the First Information Report are extracted as under: " नकल तहररर ------ ससवव मम शरमवन थवनवधयक महहदय, थवनव अतररलर जनपद अलरगढ। महहदय, सवदर नम ननवसदन हह नक नदनवनक घटनव नदनवनक 30.07.2023 कह समय कररब दहपहर 2 बजस मम अपनस खसत मम धवन लगवनस कस ललयस मम खसत पडहसर टटबहल सस पवनर लगवनस कस ललयस गयर थर नक नशशशपवल लसनह पशत शयररवज लसनह ननववसर गवम नररथव थवनव अतररलर अलरगढ नस पसवद बतवकर कश छ नशरल पदवथर लखलव नदयव और कश छ समय बवद हर बसहहश हह गयर और बसहहशर हवलत मम नशशशपवल मशझस उठवकर अपनस टटबहल कहठरर मम लस गयव और मसरस कपडड कह उतवर कर मसरस सवथ बलवतकवर कर मसरर अशलरल नवनडयह बनव लर और नशकवयत करनस पर इकलरतस भवई सनहत पररववर कह गहलर सस जवन सस मवरनस कक धमकक दर और मसरस घर सस आनस जवनस पर अपनस अजवत वयनक परछस लगव नदयस मम बशरर तरह सस डर गयर और नहह जवनस पर मसरर बनवई अशलरल वरनडयह कह ववयरल करनस और कहह कक न छहडनस कक धमकक दसतव और अपनस सहयहगर आनद सस महबवइल पर जबरन बवत करवतव और आतनक कस बल पर बशलववतव, उसकस बलहकमहल मम मजबटरर मम वह मसरव शहषण बशरस कवम कस ललए करतव थव घर पर भर आनस लगव और आतनक कस बल पर वह मशझस जबरन सहयहगर कस दवरव अकस लर बहवर लस जवनस कह दबवव बनवनस लगव नहह जवनस पर लजनदव जलवनस यव तसजवब सस जलव दसनस कक धमकक दर, नशशशपवल दबनग वयनक हह मसरर व मसरस भवई व नपतव मवतव कव जवन मवल कव खतरव बनव हहआ हह, महनस यस घटनव अपनस मवतव नपतव कह बतवई, मसरस नपतव नस जब नशशशपवल कस लखलवफ नशकवयत कक तह दबनग नशशशपवल सनहत सवलथयड नस धमकक दर पटरस पररववर कह बशरव अनजवम भशगतनव पडसगव और इतनस मशकदमस लगवव नदयस जवयमगस नक जसल मम सडवव दसगम। शरमवन जर उपरहक लहगड कस लखलवफ आवशयक कवनटनर कवयरववहर कर मसरर व मसरस मवतव नपतव भवई कक जवन मवल कक सशरकव करनस कक कक पव करम। आपकक अनत कक पव हहगर नदनवनक 01/3/24 एसडर छवयव छवयव पवथरयव छवयव पशत शर सशखपवल लसनह ननववसर गवम उतमगढर थवनव अतररलर लजलव अलरगढ । 9627298584 01/3/24..../////////नहट--- मम म 0 सरसर0 824 नहनव लसनह पमवनणत करतर हहह नक तहररर कक नकल शबद व शबद लसववय तकनरकक तशनट कस कमपयटटर पर अननकत नक गई।" 10. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, found sufficient evidence against the revisionist in respect of his involvement in the crime in question and had submitted charge- sheet before the competent court and cognizance on the said charge-sheet had already been taken. So far as the arguments raised on behalf of the revisionist for his discharge that he had filed affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police, wherein he had pointed out some dispute with Opposite Party No. 2 and further had pointed out possibility of lodging false case against him, are concerned, this Court is of the view that the said story narrated by the revisionist in his discharge application is his defence evidence and that can only be seen and scrutinized by the trial court when it is led by the revisionist before the trial court. 11. At the stage of discharge, as contemplated under Section 227 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the trial court to scrutinize and evaluate the evidence/story set-out by the accused in his application for discharge, as the scope at the stage of proceedings under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is very limited and the trial court has to see evidence, only on prima-facie basis. 12. This Court further finds that the trial court has considered each and every issue raised by the revisionist in his application for discharge, filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., in detail and the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 does not suffer from any illegality. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that earlier he could not appear before the trial court because of the death of his father, therefore he may be permitted to surrender before the trial court and apply for bail. 15. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is provided that if the revisionist surrenders before the trial court within fifteen days from today and files an application for bail, his application for bail shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. 16. If any Non-Bailable-Warrant had been issued against the revisionist for ensuring his surrender, before the trial court, that would remain stayed for the period of fifteen days only. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad