Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16980 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3151 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mahendra Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Om Prakash,Rajesh Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Fakhr Uz Zaman, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 19.4.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C. (C.A.W.), District Jhansi whereby, the application filed by the revisionists under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge from the offence, had been rejected. 3. It is contended on behalf of the revisionists that Opposite Party No. 2 had created an absolutely false story and on that basis the revisionists have been implicated for the charges punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. It has further been contended that there is allegation in the statement of the victim that she was brutally beaten by her husband with the steel rod but there is no medical evidence of injury therefore, the entire story created by Opposite Party No. 2, on its face, does not inspire confidence, as such the revisionists are entitled for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that if the entire story narrated by Opposite Party No. 2 before the trial court is properly scrutinized that will lead to a case of no evidence therefore, the trial court while rejecting the revisionists' application for discharge filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. had, in fact, committed a manifest error of law. 5. On the other hand, Sri Fakhr Uz Zaman, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has argued that Opposite Party No. 2 had been victimized by the demand of dowry by the revisionists and she had also been subjected to physical cruelty. It has further been argued that Opposite Party No. 2, who is the victim, has given categorical statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, she has stated that she had been subjected to demand of dowry by the revisionists and she had also been subjected to physical cruelty. 6. Besides the aforesaid, the argument is that Opposite Party No. 2 had been beaten by her husband with steel rod and she was not allowed to take any medical treatment therefore, she took conservative treatment at home but later on again the revisionists continued to commit cruelty. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 has argued that the Investigating Officer after collecting the enough evidence had filed charge-sheet against the revisionists and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it is a case of no evidence against the revisionists. It has further been argued by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that so far as, the credibility of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is concerned, that can only be seen during trial where the testimony of the witnesses and the victim shall be recorded and will be seen in its threadbare. 8. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the victim while lodging the FIR had categorically stated that dowry was demanded and she had been subjected to physical cruelty and further she in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had also categorically supported the prosecution version. Once there is evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionists connecting them with the crime in question, there is no occasion for the trial court to scrutinize the evidence in detail at the stage of deciding the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused. 9. This Court is also of the view that the trial court can exercise its power for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. where, it is of the opinion that the case is of no evidence but in the present case the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is on record therefore, at the stage of deciding the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the trial court cannot scrutinize the evidence. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the revisionists under Section 239 Cr.P.C. had rightly been rejected. 11. Thus, this revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025/Gss/A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad