HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1974 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Ajay Tiwari with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajbanj whereby discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected and charges have been framed against him in S.T. No. 56 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 564 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 4. Admit. 5. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., are that on 3.11.2023 Prince, a friend of Durgesh Tiwari, grand son (naati) of the informant Parmatma Sharan Mishra, took away Durgesh Tiwari with him and beat him brutally along with his associates due to which Durgesh sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Heritage Hospital, Grokhpur and his treatment was going on there. When Prince was enquired into about Durgesh, he hurled abuses to the informant and threatened to life. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Vijay Kumar Tiwari Ajay Tiwari .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) F.I.R. was lodged on 6.11.2023 and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the the present revisionist has absolutely no concern with the alleged offence and no evidence has been collected by the police against him during investigation. It is also submitted that in the present matter earlier charge sheet was submitted against the co-accused persons and no charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the present revisionist but however subsequently charge sheet was also submitted against the present revisionist on the basis of insufficient evidence. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking in the instant matter. The present prosecution has been launched with a malafide intention. It is also submitted that first of all the trial court took no cognizance of the fact that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that during investigation statements of witnesses were recorded by the I.O. which were full of material contradictions but the I.O. deliberately ignored the same. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact it was an accidental case and since the motorcycle whereby the accident is said to have taken place belongs to the revisionist and the informant wanted to bargain with the present revisionist, which was refused by him, a false case was registered by the informant against the present revisionist and other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that if the report under Section 173(2) CrPC submitted by the I.O. is taken as true, the offence coming into light cannot travel beyond the scope of Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC do not attract in this matter. It is further submitted that when the injured of the case was brought to the hospital an application was given by Manoj Kumar, father of the injured, to the effect that his son sustained serious injuries in a road accident and he had brought his son, the injured, to the hospital and he himself will be responsible for any untoward incident which may take CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 2 place during course of treatment. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements on record in support of his contention. It is further urged that there was no occasion to frame charges against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC. It is further submitted that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution so far against the revisionist. It is also submitted that the trial court rejected the discharge application and framed charges in this case in an arbitrary manner and the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of discharge and framing of charge, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether a prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has rejected the discharge application moved by the revisionist and framed charges vide impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. It is further submitted that the evidence collected by the I.O. prima facie reveals that the injured was having some affair with the daughter of Vijay Tiwari and the co- accused Prince took the injured to the house of Vijay Tiwari and Vijay Tiwari, Prince and their other associates made serious blows upon the head of the injured. He was seriously injured and was admitted into hospital. There was convincing evidence on record that co-accused Prince Verma had taken away the injured from his house on the pretext to make a visit to Nichlaul and the parents of the injured saw this happening and when the mother of the injured was going to her duty alongwith her husband Manoj Tiwari, on the way they heard some shrieks of their son and when they reached the spot they saw Prince, Vijay Tiwari, Ajay Tiwari, Mukesh Vishwakarma making grievous assault upon his head with intention to kill from fist and they also jumped upon chest. He sustained serious injuries. The independent witnesses Vinod Tiwari, Virendra Upadhyaya and Manoj Tiwari, father CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 3 of the injured, also narrated the same story in their statements during investigation. Injured was hospitalized in Rachit Hospital, Gorakhpur in ICU and his condition was very serious and he was unconscious and the doctor who treated the injured also made statement before the I.O. corroborating the factum of injuries and treatment of the injured. Since sufficient and consistent evidence and materials against the revisionist were available before the trial court, it committed no legal error in rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist and consequently in framing charges under the aforesaid Sections. It is also submitted that charge sheet was earlier submitted against some of the accused persons and the investigation in respect of present revisionist was continued and that is why the charge sheet pertaining to him was submitted later on by the I.O. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order. 9. The parameters for framing of charge and discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts. 10. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 4 undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused. 11. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge / framing of charge, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. A co-joint reading of the judicial pronouncements passed in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 clarifies that the Court at the stage of framing of charge is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed . 12. So far as the case in hand is concerned, at the very outset, it is to be seen that why the application wherein the matter was disclosed as an accidental case was given by Manoj Kumar, father of the injured, at the time of his treatment in the hospital. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since in a case of assault normally the hospital refuses to admit the injured, that is why Manoj Kumar, father of the injured, in compulsion mentioned in his application that it was an CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 5 accidental case whereas there is no evidence on record at all that the injuries sustained by the injured were the result of some accident. However, the said explanation does not find place in the statement of informant or other witnesses but is also to be kept in mind that the informant was never interrogated on this point by the I.O. and that is why he had no occasion to explain as to why at the time of admission of the injured in the hospital he disclosed it as an accidental case. Moreover, the evidence is still to come before the trial court where the said fact may be explained. Further, the parents of the injured had no reason to falsely implicate the present revisionist in this case rather they are the eye witnesses of the incident and they corroborated the whole story before the I.O. Medical report also supports the prosecution case as well and the I.O. has collected the documents relating to the injury and physical state of the injured. The injured was admitted in Heritage Hospital, Gorakhpur on 3.11.2023 itself and he was operated (Tracheostomy) for severe head injury in emergency on 10.11.2023 and he was admitted in ICU in semi conscious and critical but in stable condition. Moreover, the injured developed disability to move even and he is still under treatment as prima facie reveals from the perusal of the medical documents and photograph filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. It is also to be noted that F.I.R. in this case was lodged by Permatma Sharan Mishra, the maternal grandfather of the injured, who has also stated the cause of animosity between both sides. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed the prosecution case when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. During investigation the I.O. has collected sufficient and ample evidence against the revisionist to the effect that he assaulted the injured with intention to kill him, as appears from the perusal of the materials collected by the I.O. during investigation. Sufficient evidence has also been collected by the I.O. for his active participation in the commission of offence which prima facie shows that the present revisionist was actively involved in commission of the alleged offence. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application was rejected and charges were framed, are prima facie made CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 6 out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are prima facie not made out and the record further shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application and framing charge in the matter in the relevant sections. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 safi CRLR No. 1974 of 2025 7 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad