Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113115 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1942 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vijay Kant And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Agra in Sessions Case No. 664 of 2022 (Pankaj Vs. Vijay Kant and Others ) whereby, the application filed by the revisionists, under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C., had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that there is no other independent witness of the crime in question except the family members of the complainant. It has further been contended that the complainant in his complaint had stated that he was coming back from a company and while he was on the way, the crime in question took place and Rs. 45,555/- had been taken away from him by the accused but nowhere it has been stated that in which company, the complainant was working and from where he was coming back. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the evidence led by the complainant in the case in question is not reliable therefore, revisionists are entitled to be discharged from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that the grounds raised by the revisionists, in their application for discharge, can only be decided after the completion of the entire evidence before the trial court. At the Stage of discharge, the trial court has to look into the evidence only to a limited extent and there, detailed scrutiny of the evidence and its evaluation is not permissible. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and I find that the ground for discharge of the revisionists, raised in this criminal revision, is that the evidence lead by the complainant before the trial court is not trust-worthy. 7. This Court is of the view that the evidence available before the trial court can be scrutinized and evaluated only after the entire evidence is led before the trial court and further trial court is the best forum to evaluate the evidence. This Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot hold a detailed inquiry in respect of the evidence available before the trial court therefore, this criminal revision on the basis of the grounds raised therein, cannot be allowed. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad