SAURABH DWIVEDI AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1523 of 2013

Saurabh Dwivedi And 5 Others
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Arun Kumar
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avanish Kumar Shukla, Govt. Advocate,
                                Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, Raghavendra
                                Dwivedi

Court No. - 80
                   HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and
learned A.G.A. for the State. No one is present on behalf of opposite party
no.2.

2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur
Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2012, State v. Saurabh Dwivedi and
others, arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2010, under Sections 498A,
323, 506, 342, 467, 468, 420 and 306/511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the learned Judge has
dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionists.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the marriage
of the revisionist no.1 was solemnized with Aparna Dwivedi,the daughter of
opposite party no.2, against the will of her parents. The opposite party no.2
with the collusion of local police, started interfering in the peaceful
matrimonial life. Being aggrieved by the said act of opposite party no.2,
revisionist no.1 and Aparna Dwivedi filed a Writ Petition No. 8912 of 2010
wherein by an interim order, protection was granted by this Court. After
some time, opposite party no.2 has taken away his daughter to his house on
the pretext of vidai but later on lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 297 of
2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
against the revisionists. During investigation, on 12.04.2010, statement of
                                                           CRLR No. 1523 of 2013
                                 2


opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Again on
29.04.2010, statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the statements of Aparna Dwivedi
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded against her will. After
completion of Investigation, Investigating Officer exonerated all the
revisionists except revisionist nos. 1 and 2 and prepared a charge-sheet
against them.

4. It is further submitted that the said charge-sheet was was sent to the Circle
Officer, Govind Nagar for approval but the Circle Officer, under the
influence of opposite party no.2 directed the matter for re-investigation. The
Investigating Officer started re-investigating the matter and on 18.06.2010
filed a charge-sheet against remaining four revisionists. Thereafter, the
revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial Court and the
learned Trial Court dismissed the discharge application vide its order dated
23.04.2013. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been filed. It is submitted by
the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the learned Trial Court has
wrongly dismissed the said application as no prima facie case is made out
against the revisionists. Therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside and
the revision may be allowed.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the learned Trial Court
has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application filed by
the revisionists 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 revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned
order.

7. As per the fact of the case, a First Information Report as Case Crime No.
297 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
D.P. Act was lodged against the revisionists. During investigation,
statements of the opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of Investigation, Investigating
Officer exonerated all the revisionists except revisionist nos. 1 and 2 and
prepared a charge-sheet against them. Thereafter, the matter was directed for
                                                           CRLR No. 1523 of 2013
                                 3


re-investigation. The Investigating Officer started re-investigating the matter
and, on 18.06.2010, filed a charge-sheet against remaining four revisionists.
Thereafter, the revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial
Court and the learned Trial Court dismissed the discharge application vide
its order dated 23.04.2013.

8. 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.

9. 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
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.

10. 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 revisionists are not
made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out
against the revisionist. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the
revisionists during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not
committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force
                                                                                                 CRLR No. 1523 of 2013
                                                                     4


                                    in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionists. The
                                    impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack
                                    of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal
                                    revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

                                    11. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    Vijay
                                                                                            (Chawan Prakash,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad