VIDHI NARAYAN YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1186 of 2026

Vidhi Narayan Yadav
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)              :   Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned trial court has
rejected the discharge application without recording any evidence under
Section 244 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the present case is a counter-blast
case. The place of occurrence is different, though the time is alleged to be
the same. The medical examination was conducted after six days. The age of
the revisionist, who is 61 years old, has also not been considered by the
learned trial court.

3, The genesis of the present case is as follows:-

4. On 27.09.2021, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the
applicant and 20 other unknown persons before the Judicial Magistrate,
District Maharajganj, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 703 of
2021 (Smt. Renu Gupta vs. Vidhi Narayan and 20 unknown persons),
seeking prosecution of the applicant under Sections 308, 323, 325, 354, 452,
504, and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the statements of Smt.
Rambha Devi (P.W.-1), Smt. Sukhrani (P.W.-2), and Shri Deshbandhu
Gupta (P.W.-3) were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that all the statements are
contradictory to each other and fail to support the prosecution story. It is
further submitted that the medical examination of the complainant took place
on 18.03.2021 at about 3:30 p.m. at District Hospital, Maharajganj. All these
                                                               CRLR No. 1186 of 2026
                                   2


facts and circumstances were not considered by the learned trial court while
taking cognizance under Sections 323, 325, 354, 452, 504, and 506 I.P.C.

6. Thereafter, Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2024 (Vidhi Narayan vs. State of
U.P. and another) was filed before the Sessions Judge, District Maharajganj,
which was dismissed on 27.08.2024. Subsequently, challenging both the
orders, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court, and
the applicant was directed to file a discharge application before the learned
trial court. The said discharge application has been rejected without passing
a reasoned or speaking order.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the case is a
counter-blast. Though the time of occurrence is the same, the place of
occurrence is different, and certain contradictions have been raised in this
regard.

8. The learned trial court passed the summoning order after recording the
statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The order taking cognizance
was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge and was rejected.
Thereafter, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and the
applicant was directed to file a discharge application before the competent
court. The revisionist was summoned after recording the statements of the
complainant and the witnesses, and the cognizance order was also confirmed
by the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of the learned trial court that after
recording the statement under section 244 Cr.P.C. thereafter the revisionist
may be discharged. Section 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as follows:

"244. Evidence for prosecution.—(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise
than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the
Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any
of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

245. When accused shall be discharged.—(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred
to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case
against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his
conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of
the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to
be groundless."
                                                                                             CRLR No. 1186 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    9. There is a specific procedure as per Chapter 19 Cr.P.C. 1973 for the trial
                                    or warrant cases by Magistrate. The present case is instituted otherwise than
                                    on police report, hence the procedure under section 244 Cr.P.C. has to be
                                    complied.

                                    10. In view of the settled position of law, there is neither any illegality or
                                    irregularity in the impugned order.

                                    11. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed
                                    accordingly.

                                    12. However, the revisionist has been provided an opportunity that he may
                                    file his application under section 245 Cr.P.C. for the discharge after
                                    recording of the evidence of prosecution under section 244 Cr.P.C., if the
                                    revisionist wishes.




                                    February 17, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                              (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad