Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115951 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3604 of 2025 Revisionist :- Tufani Singh Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sharad Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 6088 of 2019 (State Vs. Tufani Singh Kushwaha) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., had been rejected. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is that the cheque-book, subject matter of the crime in question, remains in the custody of the Village Development Officer, as contemplated under Section 109A(1)(a) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 therefore, the allegation that the Gram Pradhan prepared the cheque with his signature and the scanned signature of the Village Development Officer, on its face, is absolutely false. It has further been contended that once the entire prosecution story, on its face, is false, the revisionist cannot be prosecuted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the revisionist is entitled for discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. but the learned trial court, in absolutely arbitrary and illegal manner, had rejected the application filed by the revisionist for his discharge. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that who was having custody of the cheque-book i.e. whether it was in the custody of Gram Pradhan i.e. the revisionist or in the custody of Village Development Officer, is to be determined on the basis of the detailed evidence to be led before the trial court. He has further argued that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the application for discharge filed by an accused, only prima-facie material has to be taken into account by the trial court and in the present case, the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, had collected sufficient material against the revisionist and therefore, the trial court, while rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for his discharge, has not committed any irregularity or illegality. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the grounds raised by the revisionist in this criminal revision can only be decided by the trial court after the entire evidence is led before it. I further find that at the stage of considering the application for discharge contemplated under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the trial court to have a detailed scrutiny of the evidence and the matter has to be considered only on the basis of the prima-facie satisfaction derived on the basis of the material available before the court. 7. This Court finds that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient material against the revisionist, on the basis of which, he can be charged and tried therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 6088 of 2019 (State Vs. Tufani Singh Kushwaha). 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad