Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134763 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2724 of 2025 Revisionist :- Jitendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kant Dubey,Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionists is taken on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Hapur in S.T. No.386 of 2024 (State vs. Yatendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists has submitted that previously after investigation a charge sheet was submitted against six accused persons including the revisionists, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. on which cognizance was taken and thereafter, the case was committed for trial. It was further submitted that after further investigation by the C.B.C.I.D., it was found that the three accused Jitendra, Narendra and Yogendra Pandit are innocent and as such, the C.B.C.I.D. has absolved them from the offence and has submitted final report against them and when the above facts were brought into the knowledge of the trial court by filing a discharge application then that application was rejected by the trial court by impugned order dated 29.04.2025 by holding that since only some parchas of case diary have been submitted and no final report has been submitted, as such, there is no sufficient ground to discharge the accused, at this stage. Learned counsel has submitted that the approach of the trial court is illegal. The trial court should have applied its independent mind and then come to a conclusion whether there is prima-facie sufficient evidence against the accused and then the Magistrate should have passed an order. With these submissions, it was prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the accused be discharged. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the trial court has passed a legal order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, while considering the case in which two police reports were available wherein on the first report cognizance was taken under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and after further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., final report was submitted, held as under :- "Both these reports to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the court shall discharge the accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code." 6. The facts of the present case are almost similar to the above, dealt with by the Apex Court. It is apparent that initially charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. was submitted against the accused-revisionists and after further investigation by C.B.C.I.D. they have been found innocent but the trial court has not applied its independent mind to the whole evidence available in the case diary and only passed the impugned order on the ground that no final report has been submitted after further investigation. 7. In the light of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, the trial court should have examined the whole matter afresh in totality after considering the evidence initially collected and also considering the evidence collected during further investigation and then come to an independent conclusion whether prima facie a case was made out against the accused or not. The trial court has not conducted this exercise, as such, an illegality has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the trial court is set aside. 9. The trial court is directed to decide afresh the discharge application of the accused within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after hearing both the parties and after considering the whole evidence available in the case diary which means the evidence collected initially and also evidence collected in further investigation. Order Date :- 8.8.2025/Jitendra Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad