Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3787 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Viresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 438/442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed against order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mau in Session Case No. 241 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, whereby the Trial Court has rejected discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and fixed the case for framing of charge. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that there was no evidence against the revisionists regarding their involvement in the said offence and the Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect and passed the impugned order, which is totally illegal. It is further submitted that the case was investigated four times and, on all four occasions, final report (closure report) was submitted, however, upon a protest filed by the informant, which was treated as a complaint case, and thereafter on the basis of evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the revisionists/accused have been summoned. It is also submitted that the informant sustained injuries in an accident and the revisionists were not present at the spot. As per the call detail report (C.D.R.), collected by the Investigating Officer, the location of the revisionists was not found at the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ch. Dil Nisar, Viresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Pratap Yadav Durga Yadav And 4 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) place of occurrence, and as per C.C.T.V. footage, revisionist no. 5, Suryanath Yadav, was present at another place. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that during investigation, as per technical inspection of the first informant's motor cycle, no damage was found at the back side, which rules out the prosecution case that the informant's motorcycle was hit from behind by the four wheeler. It is also submitted that the make and brand of the vehicle, which is alleged by the prosecution, was found to be different than that was stated in the FIR. Lastly, it is submitted that due to political rivalry with regard to the post of Village Pradhan, the revisionists have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, it is submitted that the Trial Court has not considered all these material aspects and in a cursory manner, the discharge application has been rejected. 5. In this regard the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, 1979 AIR 366, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold, the nature of evidence recorded by the Police, or the documents produced before the Court, which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame charge against him. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed and submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists for framing of charge and the points raised by the revisionists relate to disputed questions of facts, which can be examined and evaluated during the course trial and are not material at this stage. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. 7. It is settled law that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not required to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution, nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of such material to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge do not fall within the domain of the Court. In State of Orissa Vs. CRLR No. 3787 of 2026 2 Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a roving and fishing inquiry at the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or discharge of the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is not permissible, as it would amount to a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge and would be contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is also well established that the assessment of the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be undertaken only during the trial. A charge can be framed even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded upon the material available before the Court, which leads it to form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged. 8. In the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, (2023) INSC 555, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, at the stage of hearing on the question of charge, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, and if no offence is made out, only then can an accused be discharged. The truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be examined only at the stage of trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to satisfy itself as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. 9. In the decision of State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of charge is to test the existence of a prima facie case. At this stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence, and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record or to examine whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of the trial. 10. In the case of State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. R. Soundirarasu etc., 2022 INSC 915, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the only consideration at the stage of framing of charge is whether the allegation/charge is groundless, i.e., whether there is no basis CRLR No. 3787 of 2026 3 or foundation in the evidence. The test to be applied is whether, even if the material on record remains unrebutted, it would make out no case whatsoever against the accused. 11. In view of submissions of both the parties and upon a perusal of record as well as the above legal position, if we examine the impugned order, then it does not suffer from any material illegality and irregularity. In Kamal Singh Vs. Resham Singh, 1991 ALJ 364, this Court has held that meticulous examination of case diary is not permissible at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the reliability of statement of witnesses contained in case diary also not to be questioned at the time of framing of charge. Though in the present case, the matter was investigated four times and on all the four occasions, final report (closure report) was submitted, and on the last time, upon protest, moved by the informant, the same was treated as a complaint and after recording of statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court summoned the revisionist. 12. The contention on behalf of the revisionists is that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; there are contradictions in the medical report and also that the treating doctor has opined that the injuries could have been sustained on account of accident or assault; the vehicle allegedly used in the incident is doubtful, whether it was a Bolero or Maruti. The informant and the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements, which, according to learned counsel, raises doubt upon the prosecution case. So in view of the above there was not sufficient ground to frame charge. The above submission has no force as all these points relate to examination and appreciation of evidence and meticulous evaluation of evidence, which is not required at the stage of framing of charge, as it would amount to conducting a mini trial. Any contradiction with regard to name and make of the vehicle involved in the incident is not very material at this stage and its effect could be examined during trial after evidence is led by both the parties. 13. The other contention advanced on behalf of the revisionists is with regard to summoning order passed against the revisionists and it is also not relevant, as this revision has not been filed against the summoning order. So, it would not be proper to scrutinize the summoning order, CRLR No. 3787 of 2026 4 which is not under challenge. It is relevant to note that the revisionists had moved an Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 49968 of 2025, to quash the entire proceedings of this case, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench this Court with the liberty to the revisionists to file a discharge application before the Trial Court. 14. It has also been argued on behalf of the revisionists that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., however, he could not point out any material contradiction in the statements, in support of his contention. 15. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also argued that the injured sustained injuries, as he dashed against a sign board by the side of the road, accidently, and has falsely implicated the revisionists in this case. A perusal of injury report shows that the injured sustained sixteen injuries and in C.T. scan the doctor noticed swelling over left parietal scalp. The Trial Court observed that looking into the nature of the injuries and the parts of body upon which they were inflicted, it does not appear that it could have been caused by an accident and has, accordingly, summoned the revisionists. 16. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that technical examination of the vehicle of the injured was carried out, in which no damage was found over the back part of the vehicle, which rules out that the above vehicle was hit from behind at the time of incident. This contention also relates to examination of evidence, which can be done only after evidence is led by both the parties. Similarly the issue of plea of alibi can also be examined after evidence is led by parties during trial. 17. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that the injured was sent for medical examination on 09.03.2023 at P.H.C., Ghosi, Mau, where only contusion, abrasion and pain was noticed and looking into the evidence, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. This contention of learned counsel for the revisionists again has no force. To constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is the ‘knowledge’ or ‘intention’, with which the act is done, is material, and not the injuries caused. The informant/injured has stated that he was hit by the accused by a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 50 X2773 and thereafter they assaulted him CRLR No. 3787 of 2026 5 with hockey and iron rod causing him several injuries with an intention to kill. Here, it is to be noted that even on grave suspicion, charge can be framed against an accused. After the protest petition was treated as a complaint, the evidence produced under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has much greater significance than the evidence collected by the I.O., though that can not be brushed out. In view of decision of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (supra), at the stage of hearing on the question of charge, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, and if no offence is made out, only then can an accused be discharged. The truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be examined only at the stage of trial. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to satisfy itself as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the Trial Court has found sufficient evidence against the revisionists to frame charge against them. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and it does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court. 19. This Criminal Revision has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2026 Subham CRLR No. 3787 of 2026 6 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad