HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10161 of 2026 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Notice has not been issued to O.P. No.2. 2. Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Session Trial No.721 of 2018 (State vs. Ram Pher and another) arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 2023, under Sections 147, 352, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 198-A of UP ZA and LR Act, P.S.- Dudhara, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby the discharge application of the appellants has been rejected. 4. A discharge application, being Application No. 9-Kha, was moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the appellants, namely, Ram Pher and Jay Ram, which was rejected vide order dated 18.03.2026. Subsequently, an application, being Application No. 17-Ka, was also moved by the appellants seeking correction of certain clerical mistakes in the order dated 18.03.2026. The said application, being Application No. 17-Ka, was allowed by the learned trial court accordingly. 5. Admittedly, the present case was registered on 24.07.2003 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 22/23.06.2003. The accused persons, namely, Ram Pher, Jay Ram and Piyare, are specifically named Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ram Pher And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) in the FIR along with 10-11 unknown persons. The FIR contains the specific and clear residential address of Ram Pher as well as Jay Ram. Thus, the identity and residential addresses of both Ram Pher and Jay Ram, who is the son of Ram Pher are clearly disclosed in the FIR and there does not appear to be any ambiguity in this regard. So far as Piyare is concerned, who is stated to have died during the pendency of the proceedings, the proceedings against him have already been abated by the learned trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that the charge-sheet was mechanically submitted despite Piyare having died about 20 years prior thereto, and cognizance was also taken against the deceased. The Investigating Officer failed to conduct a proper investigation, including examination of independent witnesses and proper verification of the relevant facts. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour. The learned trial court failed to consider the grounds raised in the discharge application and rejected the same without proper application of mind. The appellants therefore pray for setting aside of the impugned order and their discharge. 7. Learned AGA submits that the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case against the appellants. At the stage of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. The alleged defects in investigation, discrepancies in the records and the plea that the dispute is civil in nature are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application after considering the material on record, and no interference is warranted. 8. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category and that the accused persons allegedly attempted to grab possession of the disputed land, which had been leased in favour of the victim. It is further alleged that the accused persons intimidated the victim and also committed mischief in relation to the disputed property. It is also an admitted position that the present CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 2 criminal case has remained pending since the year 2003 and, despite the passage of more than two decades, charges have not yet been framed. From a perusal of the order-sheet, it further appears that proceedings of NBW/82/83 Cr.P.C. were also initiated by the learned trial court against the accused persons. The learned counsel for the appellants has fairly admitted that no criminal appeal or other appropriate proceeding has been filed before this Court challenging the order whereby cognizance was taken or the summoning order passed by the learned trial court. 9. The material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused appellants warranting their facing trial. The issues sought to be raised by the appellants involve matters which cannot appropriately be adjudicated upon at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the discharge application, has considered the material collected during investigation and has rightly observed that the prosecution evidence is not required to be meticulously appreciated or tested as would be done at the stage of trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to consider whether the material on record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application of the appellants. 10. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "………. While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 3 then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facic case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge." 11. In Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 4 SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, by quoting the decision in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) SCC (Cri) 533, as under:- "Reading [Ss. 227 and 228] together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 4 otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." 12. In Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 657, the Apex Court held as under:- "21. This Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, considered the scope of enquiry a Judge is required to make while considering the question of framing of charges. After an exhaustive survey of the case law on the point, this Court, in para 10 of the judgment, laid down the following principles: "10. ... (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 5 which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 23. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. The principles which emerged therefrom have been taken note of in para 21 as under: "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 6 charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 7 if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal." 13. Thus, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the discharge application filed by the appellants. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 15. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge concerned within 48 hours. October 6, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 10161 of 2026 8 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad