HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2597 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 46752 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 781 of 2024, under Sections 351(2), 55, 333, 61(2) BNS, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, he has falsely been implicated by the informant Smt. Santosh Devi who is Block Pramukh and lodged the F.I.R. by using her position. The husband and son of the informant are in jail. She has lodged the present F.I.R. with false allegations that he went to the house and tried to blackmail her for making help through Jagdip by disposing of Neeraj who is witness in that case. Further submitted that there is no any material on record to support this allegation. During the course of investigation, the informant made statement but there are so many contradictions in the statements of the informant. An application under Section 528 BNSS No. 39731 of 2024 was also filed before this Court to quash the entire proceedings of the case but the application was dismissed then he filed an application for discharge before the learned trial court on that application impugned order was passed Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gulab Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vivek Alias Kamal Singh Shyoran .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) by learned trial court without applying its judicial mind, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court on an application for discharge dated 03.02.2026 and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, though the husband and son of the informant are in jail and Neeraj is witness in that case. The revisionist went to the house of the informant and tried to blackmail her by extending benefit in her favour through Jagdip who would dispose of Neeraj. In case, she did not agree, he gave threat to her that husband and son will be punished with death or life imprisonment and also threatened her then she lodged the present F.I.R. against the revisionist. At the stage, of framing of charge, the learned trial court is to examine the material collected during the course of investigation only with a view to find out a prima facie case. The revisionist has raised all these issues before this Court when the application under Section 528 BNSS No. 39731 of 2024 was being heard and remedy was refused. The learned trial court has passed the order in question on the basis of material available on record. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the contents of application for discharge, the contents of F.I.R. and the statement made by the informant, it transpires that the revisionist went into the house of the informant whose husband and son are in jail and tried to blackmail her by removing the witness Neeraj from the way through the help of Jagdip. She was also threatened that her husband and son will be punished with death or imprisonment for life, in case, she did not agree and also threatened her. During the course of investigation, C.C.T.V. footage was also examined by the Investigating Officer in which it was found established that revisionist went into the house of the informant and was making conversation with her. All these facts were taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the order in question on application for discharge. At the stage of framing of CRLR No. 2597 of 2026 2 charge, the learned trial court is to scrutinize the material collected during the course of investigation only with a view to find out prima facie case but not as during the trial. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 03.02.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 2597 of 2026 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad