Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13630 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 233 of 2025 Revisionist :- Raju Alias Vinod Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Ist (offences against women) Bhadohi in S.T. No. 216 of 2022 ( State Vs. Raju Shukla @ Vinod Shukla), whereby the revisionist's application for discharge, filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., had been rejected and direction has been issued for considering the matter for framing of charges against the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the evidence against co-accused Aryan @ Deepak Shukla and the present revisionist is identical but the trial court had framed charges against Aryan @ Deepak Shukla under Sections 323 and 354A I.P.C. whereas the trial court, while rejecting discharge application filed by the revisionist vide impugned order dated 28.11.2024, had given a finding that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionist for framing of charges against him under Sections 34/323, 376D, 368 and 506 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that once there is no difference in the evidence available against the revisionist and co-accused Aryan @ Deepak Shukla, there is no occasion for the trial court to record a finding that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionist for framing of charges against him under sections 34/323, 376D, 368 and 506 I.P.C. as the trial court itself, on the identical evidence had framed charges against Aryan @ Deeak Shukla under Sections 323 and 354A I.P.C. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and prima facie, I find that once the charges against the revisionist have yet not been framed and only his application for discharge had been rejected, there was no occasion for the trial court to record a finding in the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionist to frame charges under Sections 34/323, 376D, 368 and 506 I.P.C. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is partly allowed and the part of the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 i.e. "अभभिययक रराजजू उरर भविननोद शयक्लरा कके भविरु्ቍ धराररा - 34/323, 376 डड, 368 एविवं 506 भिरारतडय दण्ड सवंभहितरा कके अन्तररत आरनोप भविरभचित भकए जरानके करा आधरार पयरारप हिहै।" is hereby set aside. 7. The trial court shall be at liberty to consider the entire matter afresh, at the time of framing of charges against the revisionist. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad