HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 285 of 2026 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment/order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 3, District-Budaun in Session Trial No. 1709 of 2025 (State of U.P. versus Jitendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2023 under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Budaun whereby the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place on 14.10.2023 whereas the medical record of the injured is dated 13.10.2023. He further submits that some of the witnesses described the date of occurrence as 14.10.2023 whereas some have stated that it took place on 13.10.2023. According to the learned counsel, the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. were added subsequently. 3. That apart, it is emphasized that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 4 days on 18.10.2023, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, and their application seeking discharge has been erroneously dismissed by the trial court, and charges have been framed against them. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering his submission, this Court does not find any merit in the revision petition as the medical record collected during investigation reflects that one of the injured, namely, Lavi Patel has in all suffered six injuries. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Devendra Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Sharma Jitendra And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. That apart, the variation in the date of occurrence at the stage of framing of charges cannot be attached much significance as in the given background of the case, particularly, the nature of injuries, it would not be a case for discharge of the accused as prosecution deserves opportunity to discharge its onus to bring home the guilt of the accused person. 6. By now, it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges only suspicion is enough, therefore, considering the nature of allegations, contents of the F.I.R. wherein the petitioners are named, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the trial court. A reading of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the record of the case while proceeding to frame charges against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. April 20, 2026 SY CRLR No. 285 of 2026 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad