Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108805 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3097 of 2024 Revisionist :- Janak Dubey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Juned Alam Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Case No. 6400 of 2013 (State Vs. Janak Dubey and others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionists, under Section 227/ 239 Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C., had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that initially F.I.R. was registered under Sections 147, 452, 504, 506, 323 and 308 I.P.C. and the Investigating Officer, after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet and the competent court took cognizance on the chargesheet. It has further been contended that later on the matter was referred for further investigation and thereafter, another report has been filed before the court concerned wherein, it had been stated that the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out against the revisionists. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that once further investigation in the matter had been conducted and the report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer before the court concerned, it is obligatory on the court concerned to consider the said report while deciding the application filed by the accused under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. for their discharge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has relied on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 and has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment had categorically held that if further investigation had been conducted, then the out come of the further investigation is bound to be considered by the competent court while considering the application for discharge. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 have opposed this criminal revision and have submitted that on the basis of the material available before the court, the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out. 7. On the specific query having been put, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 could not deny the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra). 8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have agreed that this Court may simply set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 and may remand the matter to the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna to consider and decide the application filed by the revisionists under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. afresh in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra). 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and since the learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed that this criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 may simply be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the court concerned to consider the application of the revisionists, filed under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., afresh, this Court is not adjudicating the matter on merits. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Case No. 6400 of 2013 (State Vs. Janak Dubey and others), is hereby set aside. 11. The matter is remanded to the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna to consider and decide the application filed by the revisionists under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. for their discharge, afresh, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra) within a period of one month from today. 12. It is also provided that if the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, while deciding the application, comes to the conclusion that he does not have jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the revisionists under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., then the court concerned shall commit the matter and shall forward the entire matter to the court of Sessions. If the learned Magistrate decides to commit the case to the court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall consider and decide the application filed by the revisionists under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., within a period of two months. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad