HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5426 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Shri Rakesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 of the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar passed in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 (Gajendra Singh Bhati Vs. Kalyan Singh and Others), under Section 406 I.P.C. 3. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge application which has been moved on behalf of the revisionists/ accused and has fixed the case for examination/ evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the earlier the revisionists had filed discharge application which was rejected against which the revisionists had preferred Criminal Revision No.167 of 2025. The revision was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- Court No.2, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.02.2026 and the learned Trial Court was directed to decide the discharge application afresh by speaking order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court heard both the parties and again rejected the discharge application of the revisionist vide impugned order dated 08.07.2026. 4. It is submitted that the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is contrary to the evidence recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. From the evidence adduced by the complainant no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out. It is stated that in fact Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) are Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shravan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kalyan Singh And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) due upon complainant and the complaint has been filed to deter the revisionists to initiate any proceeding for recovery of the aforesaid amount. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State has opposed and submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists to frame charge under Section 406 I.P.C, and with regard to framing of charge it is the complaint and the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. there is material and not statement which was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. 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 v. 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, therefore, learned trial court has not committed any illegality and infirmity in passing the impugned order. 7. In view of the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of record it appears that the matter relates to complaint case and the revisionists was summoned under Section 406 IPC, thereafter, the evidence was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and in view of the above, the revisionists has prayed that no offence is made out against him. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the material points with regard to disposal of discharge application and has came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced under Section 244 Cr.P.C., prima facie, make out the offence punsihable under Section 406 I.P.C. CRLR No. 5426 of 2026 2 8. At the stage of framing of charge, it is the evidence which was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and the complaint is material to form an opinion to frame charge or not. The evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is not very material at this stage, therefore, the contention of the revisionists in this regard has no force. The revisionists/ accused has stated that money was due upon the complainant and to deter him to initiate any proceeding for recovery of the aforesaid amount this complaint was filed, this fact requires appreciation of evidence, which can be done only after evidence is led by both the parties, therefore, this contention also has no force, at this stage. 9. In view of the above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and it does not suffers from any perversity calling for any interference of this Court 10. Therefore, this Criminal Revision has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 11, 2026 AdityaG CRLR No. 5426 of 2026 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad