Allahabad High Court

RAMESHWAR SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: PADAM NARAIN MISHRA

Holding

The magistrate was correct to reject the discharge because a prima facie case was established and detailed evidentiary assessment is not required at the discharge stage.

Summary

The revisionists challenged the Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting their discharge application in a case involving offences under Sections 409, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. They argued that the magistrate failed to consider the entire material, that the FIR was frivolous, and that the essential ingredients of Section 409 were not established. The State contended that the magistrate correctly examined the material to determine whether a prima facie case existed, noting that detailed evidentiary scrutiny is not required at the discharge stage. The High Court held that the magistrate had indeed considered the allegations and investigation material and found a prima facie case, and that disputes over the truth of the FIR are matters for trial, not discharge. Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error and affirmed the magistrate’s order, rejecting the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the discharge application without a full evidentiary assessment
Whether the magistrate is required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence at the discharge stage
Whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case under Section 409 IPC against the accused

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 420, 504, 506

Subjects

discharge application
prima facie case
criminal revision
Indian Penal Code
Section 409
magistrate jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1090 of 2024

Rameshwar Singh And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saurabh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devika Kapoor, G.A., Pranjal Singh

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms.
Devika Kapoor, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pranjal Singh, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the validity
of the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No. 23658 of 2022 (State Vs.
Rameshwar Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of
2022, under Sections 409, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Alinagar, District Chandauli, whereby the discharge application dated
28.06.2023 moved by the revisionists has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned
Magistrate has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in
accordance with law. It is further submitted that while passing the
impugned order dated 31.01.2024, the learned Magistrate has
committed an error of law in proceeding against the revisionists
without properly considering the entire material available on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that the
impugned order has been passed in a mechanical and arbitrary
manner, without taking into consideration that the FIR was lodged in
a casual manner and that the prosecution story, as set out therein, is
incomplete and appears to have been concocted by the informant
with an intention to pressurize the revisionists. It is further submitted
that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 I.P.C.
CRLR No. 1090 of 2024
2

are not disclosed against the revisionists; however, the said aspect
has not been properly considered by the learned Magistrate.

4. Per Contra, Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and
submits that the learned Court has considered the material available
on record and has rightly rejected the discharge application. At the
stage of consideration of discharge, the Court is required to examine
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused
and a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.

6. The jurisdiction of the Court at the stage of consideration of an
application for discharge is limited. The Court is required only to
examine the material placed before it for the purpose of determining
whether the allegations and the material collected during investigation
disclose a prima facie case against the accused. At this stage, the
Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the
evidence or to undertake a mini trial.

7. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that the learned magistrate has considered the allegations
made in the FIR as well as the material collected during investigation
and has recorded a finding that a prima facie case is made out
against the revisionists. The contention of learned counsel for the
revisionists that the FIR is false, concocted or has been lodged with
an ulterior motive involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot
appropriately be adjudicated at the stage of discharge.

8. The submission that the ingredients of Section 409 I.P.C. are not
made out against the revisionists also cannot be accepted at this
stage. Whether the necessary ingredients of the said offence are
ultimately established against the revisionists is a matter which would
require consideration on the basis of the evidence led during trial. At
the stage of discharge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether
the material on record discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused.
CRLR No. 1090 of 2024
3

9. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or
consideration of discharge application, the Court is not required to
weigh the evidence as if it were conducting a trial. If, on the basis of
the material available on record, a prima facie case or grave
suspicion exists against the accused, the matter must be proceeded
for the trial.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Chandauli, warranting interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is rejected.

12. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 is hereby
affirmed.

13. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein
above are confined only to the adjudication of the present revision
and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the stage of trial.

September 8, 2026
Israr
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…