HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7054 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and quash the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 01, Bijnor in S.T.No. 1776 of 2025 (State Vs. Suneel Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 under section 87, 64, 351(3) of BNS Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor." 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Noorpur, District Binjor under Sections 87, 64 and 351(3) BNSS against the applicant. The same was lodged with in unexplained delay of 20 days. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim seem to be a consenting party as she travelled with the applicant all the way to Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Haryana and not raised any alarm. During investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. There is material contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement given by the prosecutrix during investigation. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the applicant. He filed an application under Section 250 BNSS seeking discharge. He further submits that no prima facie case is made out against him but the learned Trial Court, vide order dated Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suneel Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 04.09.2025 has dismissed the discharge application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant as the learned Trial Court has rejected the said application after taking into consideration the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. The Trial Court found that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. As per the fact of the case, a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Noorpur, District Binjor under Sections 87, 64 and 351(3) BNSS regarding an offence of rape committed by the applicant with the wife of opposite party no.2. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS in which she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The applicant has filed an application under Section 250 BNSS which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.09.2025. 6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime. 7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section 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 and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On NA528 No. 7054 of 2026 2 the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused. 7. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. The impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court has given clear and categorical reasoning in passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the application is refused. 8. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. April 10, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 7054 of 2026 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad