HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36312 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned discharge dismissal order dated 21.9.2024 and impugned charge sheet no. 74 o 2020, under sections 427, 447, 380, 506, 411 IPC passed by CJM Budaun as well as summoning order dated 4.11.2020 in Case No. 12787 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 412 of 2019 under sections 427, 447, 380,506 IPC, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun. It is also prayed to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case during pendency of the present application. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicants. It is further submitted that investigating officer recorded the statement of two independent witnesses, namely, Jantar and Parman who have subsequently filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate that their statements were not recorded by the investigating officer. It is further submitted that matter relates to some civil dispute. It is also submitted that applicants have approached this court earlier by filing Application U/S 482 No. 1051 of 2024 which was disposed of and withdrawn with liberty to appear and file application for discharge before learned trial court. It is further submitted that an abuse of process of the court has been occasioned by rejecting the application for discharge. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bagesh Alias Bageshwar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State submitted that learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge application as from the statement of two independent witnesses, the allegation against the applicants are found to be true. Their affidavits cannot be looked into at this stage. Vide order impugned, learned Magistrate has rejected his application for discharge filed by the applicants under section 239 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order and the two independent witnesses, namely, Jantar and Parman have supported the prosecution case. Later on, they have filed affidavits before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that there submissions were not recorded by the investigating officer. 5. It is well settled law that at the stage of considering discharge application under section 239 Cr.P.C. the court is required to look into the matter and conclude whether, prima facie, case is made out against the accused or not at this stage. The evidence produced by the defence or any other material cannot be looked into since two independent witnesses, namely, Jantar and Parman have supported the prosecution case in their statement recorded under section 161Cr.P.C., there is no abuse of process of the court by the order impugned 6. In view of the above, instant application lacks merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, application is dismissed. September 19, 2025 SY NA528 No. 36312 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad