Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73053 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4633 of 2024 Revisionist :- Neeraj Baba And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar,Shiv Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2024 ( State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Yadav) whereby, the application filed by the revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offences, in question, had been rejected. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the date of the alleged incident had been shown in the F.I.R. as 22.10.2023 whereas, the injury report is of 24.10.2023 therefore, it is an absolutely false case and the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been contended that the person to whom motive had been attributed in the F.I.R., his name had been expunged in the police investigation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false which is apparent from the fact that there are allegations of serious injury and the alleged incident took place on 22.10.2023 whereas, the medical report relating to injuries is of 24.10.2023. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the only argument raised on behalf of the revisionists, in respect of the veracity of the medical report and genuineness of the injuries, can be tested only when the matter is put to trial and prosecution is asked to lead the evidence. He further submits that the said argument raised on behalf of the revisionists cannot be a ground for their complete discharge from the offences, as contemplated under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has vehemently argued that the revisionists can be discharged in exercise of power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. only when they are able to demonstrate before the court that there is no evidence to connect them with the crime in question. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 8. I find that the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has assailed the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the trial court only on a limited ground that the alleged incident took place on 22.10.2023 whereas, the injury report is of 24.10.2023 therefore, the entire prosecution story is false. 9. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the revisionists can only be tested in the trial when the prosecution is permitted to lead its evidence and thereafter the revisionists are given opportunity to lead their defence evidence. At the stage of discharge, as contemplated under Section 227 Cr.P.C., neither the trial court nor this Court can go into the details of the evidence available on record and therefore, it is apparent that the revisionists have not been able to make out any case for their discharge from the offences in question. 10. Accordingly I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 9.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2024 ( State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Yadav) 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad