Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116928 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5980 of 2023 Revisionist :- Wakeel Ahmad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamla Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for revisionists, Ms. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionists with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 46749 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 285 of 2021, under Section 147, 452, 354Kha, 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits, on the basis of false allegation, revisionists have been made accused in the present matter and when they filed their discharge application before the court concerned then by the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 their discharge application has been dismissed. 4. He further submits, from the record it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged against revisionists and others on 10.11.2021 but before the alleged incident on 27.06.2021 FIR from the side of the revisionists had been lodged against the informant side with regard to injury caused by them to revisionist no.3 and therefore prima facie it appears to be a case of counter-blast. 5. He further submits, even from the perusal of the statements recorded during investigation, it could not be reflected that any cognizable offence against the revisionists is made out but in spite of that court concerned dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionists, therefore, committed gross illegality, therefore, impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the court concerned is liable to be set aside and revisionists are liable to be discharged in the present matter. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a case in which as per allegation due to the assault made by the revisionists and others three persons sustained injuries and their injury reports are also on record and during investigation they and other witnesses categorically stated that revisionists and others caused these injuries, therefore, it cannot be said that from perusal of the evidence available against the revisionists on record no offence is made out. 7. They further submitted merely on the ground that earlier revisionists lodged FIR against the informant of the present case revisionists cannot be discharged in present case therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the court concerned. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. By way of instant revision revisionists challenged the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the court concerned by which their discharge application has been dismissed. 10. As per learned counsel for revisionist FIR of the present case was lodged by the informant side against the revisionists and others on 10.11.2021 but before that on 27.06.2021 revisionists side had lodged FIR against informant side with regard to injury caused by them to the revisionist no.3, therefore, only with intention to save the skin from earlier case lodged by the revisionists FIR of the present case was lodged against the revisionists and others as counter blast but in view of this Court merely on this basis revisionists cannot be discharged. 11. However, learned counsel also argued, even from perusal of evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation no offence is made out against revisionists but as per allegations revisionists made assault and in the incident three persons sustained injuries and their injury reports are on record and they in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated against revisionists therefore, it cannot be said that from perusal of record no offence is made out against revisionists. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 in paragraph 11 observed as:- "The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court." 13. In case at hand, neither there is any material available on record on the basis of which it can be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the revisionists nor it can be recorded that proceedings pending against the revisionists amounts to abuse of process of law. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the court concerned by which, discharge application filed by the revisionists has been dismissed does not suffer with any illegality and impugned order dated 21.10.2023 cannot be said to be illegal. 15. Accordingly, the instant revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad