Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86181 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2382 of 2025 Revisionist :- Raj Nath Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Kumar Pandey,Hemant Pratap Singh,Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision under Section 438/442 BNSS has been preferred by the revisionist, namely, Raj Nath Patel against the orders dated 21.02.2025 and 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Prayagraj in Session Trial No. 1000 of 2024 (State Vs. Mannu Hashmi @ Iliyas and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 425 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj whereby discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has been rejected and charges against him have been framed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. The Investigating Officer has not conducted fair investigation. In the F.I.R., it has not been clarified that which injury has been caused by whom. Several other factual arguments have been raised to demonstrate that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and lastly, it is submitted that discharge application of the revisionist has been illegally rejected by the trial court without considering the defence of the revisionist and charges against him have been framed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that under the facts and evidence on record, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. Much emphasis has been given that since charges have already been framed against the revisionist on 21.03.2025 and trial is proceeding, therefore, relief of discharge as sought for by the revisionist cannot be granted at this stage. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that that as per F.I.R. accused were carrying sticks, batons, iron rods and assaulted complainant's father (Mohd. Siddique), who has received ten injuries. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 has already been given effect and charges have been framed against the revisionist on 21.03.2025. 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. 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 defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of deciding the discharge application or framing charge. Even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting the prayer for discharge. So far as order of framing charge for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. against the revisionist is concerned, it is relevant to mention that it is well settled that charge can be altered at any stage of trial by the trial Court as per the evidence led before the trial Court, for which trial Court is free to consider this aspect of the matter at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 21.02.2025 and 21.03.2025. 7. The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the revisionist to raise all the points in their defence which have taken in the present criminal revision at the appropriate stage of trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad