DR. FARAHIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2010 of 2025

Dr. Farahim
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Gyan Chandra Yadav, Sundeep Shukla
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. None is present for the Opposite Party No. 2 despite service
sufficient.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is
a renowned doctor and he has not committed any crime or offence. He
has been falsely implicated in the said case. The impugned order dated
12.3.2025 is wholly unjust and has been passed without proper
application of judicial mind. By perusal of the first information report as
well as the material collected by the investigating officer during
investigation, there is no material which constitute the offence against
the revisionist that the revisionist was not present at the place of
occurrence. There is no evidence showing the presence of the
revisionist. There is also no evidence that he attacked upon the
deceased. The accused persons, lashed with knife and sharp edged
weapons, entered into the shop of the revisionist and the revisionist
could not resist their entrance. The entire material collected by the
investigating officer not shown that the revisionist has committed any
offence.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the
additional statement of the complainant Vinod Kumar it has been stated
that previously he could not know and now he has having the
knowledge that Farookh and Dr. Farahim brother of Farookh and Gulab
were also wanted in a murder case. Now it came to the knowledge that
there is also conspiracy of Dr. Farahim in the murder of son of the
complainant. Two miscreants who committed the murder are resident of
mohalla of Dr. Farahim and they were associated with Dr. Farahim. The
offender who has committed the murder of my son came from the side of
Dr. Farahim and after murder they went to the hospital of Dr. Farahim.
After committing the murder, offenders were saying that the work has
done and now reach to Dr. Farahim. Dr. Farahim had provided shelter to
                                                                               CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                            2


the offenders. Now this also came to my knowledge that the murder of
my son has been performed with conspiracy and planning because the
accused persons of murder were having good relation with Dr. Farahim
since back. The statement of Ravi Kumar son of the complainant has also
supported the version of the prosecution. Sawan son of Raju, witness of
the fact also supported the version of the prosecution. The revisionist
has relied on the eye witness statement of Anuj Kumar son of Pramod
Kumar that on 4..8.2023 at 3.00 P.M. in the noon, Tarun, Faizan and
Gulab had consistently stabbed on Rohit and one amongst them Samir
was holding the hands of Rohit and other two had surrounded him and
saying that whosoever came to save him they will kill him but as soon as
crowd reaches at the spot, they all run away and Rohit fell down on the
earth. At the time of running away from the spot, one of them said that
we should go to Dr. Farahim and settle our account and then they will be
meet in the evening. The half of the crowed ran away behind the voice
and while running away they pull down the Rohit on earth and entered
into the hospital of Dr. Farahim, which is near by the place of incident.
Since we reach there, they were sit there. After seeing us, Dr. Farahim
feel very uncomfortable and managed three persons away from the
behind side. The crowed chases them and catch one of them namely
Tarun. Since Dr. Farahim got this information, he had left the treatment of
Rohit and went out side to save the Tarun. Thereafter the police came
and took the Tarun on their vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the statement of
Constable Rooman Singh and Sub Inspector Vikas Sharma that we have
got the information that there was some incident of stabbing took place at
Kila Bus Stand, Mawana District Meerut and the injured was admitted
to Dr. Farahim's hospital.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is no
corroboration in the first information report and the contents of the
witnesses Constable Rooman Singh and Sub Inspector Vikas Sharma. He
has further submitted that there is non compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal and another, reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 366
and relied on paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 which is as follows:-
" 7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:-


"If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing
the the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."

The words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a
mere post-office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind
                                                                                    CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                               3

to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the
matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after
the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as
to frame a charge against him.

8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this
Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1978) 1 SCR 257: (AIR 1977
SC 2018) where Untwalia J. speaking for the Court observed as follows (at p. 2019):-

"Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the
place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the
sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be
guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to
prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or
rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." This Court has thus held that whereas strong
suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction
of the Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused. Even under the Code of 1898 this
Court has held that a committing Magistrate had ample powers to weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a case of commitment to the Sessions Judge has been made out."


8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar, AIR 2022 S.C. 4288 which relates to the Prevention of
Corruption Act, hence the fact of this case is entirely different to the fact
of the present case, as such, no benefit goes to the revisionist.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on the case of
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2011
Cr. LJ1225 (Del) and relied on Paragraph Nos. 15,16 and 17 which is as
follows:-

"15. In Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra), the principles enunciated in Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) have
been reiterated and it was held:


"12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In
exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that
the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges 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; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
                                                                                 CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                             4

suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post
office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (see Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal).

14. We have perused the records and we agree with the above views expressed by the High Court. We find
that in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the

FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused
and statements of witnesses were recorded by the police after ten months of the occurrence. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact the prosecution
has not been able to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no prima facie case was made against
the appellant."

16. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to
say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of
the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie
whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to
adduce prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination
or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then
there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. A Magistrate enquiring into a case under
Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. is not to act as a mere Post Office and has to come to a conclusion whether the
case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. He is entitled to sift and
weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment,
and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no prima facie evidence or the
evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, on the
other hand, if there is some evidence on which the conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit
the case. It is also clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should
not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.

17. Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.

On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:-

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 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. The test to determine prima facie case would
depend upon the facts of each case.

ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has
not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.

iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider
the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
                                                                                   CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                              5

iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on

record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the
material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was
possible.

vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence
as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth
even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."


10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied in the case of
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC
3363, that is the law passed in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
where the scope are entirely and altogether different from the present
proceedings of criminal revision of which scope is very much limited and
confined.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan
alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2020 Supreme Court (1) and
submitted that there is no compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. There is no
pen drive has been supplied hence he has not got the proper and ample
opportunity. He relied on Paragaph Nos. 14 and 15, which is as
follows:-

"14. Concededly, as regards the "documents" on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigating
officer has no option but to forward "all documents" to the Magistrate alongwith the police report. There
is no provision (unlike in the case of "statements") enabling the investigating officer to append a note
requesting the Magistrate, to exclude any part thereof ("document") from the copies to be granted to the
accused. SubSection (7), however, gives limited discretion to the investigating officer to forward copies of
all or some of the documents, which he finds it convenient to be given to the accused. That does not permit
him to withhold the remaining documents, on which the prosecution proposes to rely against the accused,


from being submitted to the Magistrate alongwith the police report. On the other hand, the expression
used in Section 173(5)(a) of the 1973 Code makes it amply clear that the investigating officer is obliged to
forward "all" documents or relevant extracts on which the prosecution proposes to rely against the
accused concerned alongwith the police report to the Magistrate.

15. On receipt of the police report and the accompanying statements and documents by virtue of Section
207 of the 1973 Code, the Magistrate is then obliged to furnish copies of each of the statements and
                                                                                  CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                             6

documents to the accused. Section 207 reads thus:

"207.Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.-In any case where the
proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the
accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under subsection (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution
proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such
exclusion has been made by the police officer under subsection (6) of section 173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report
under subsection (5) of section 173:

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause
(iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part
of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the
accused:

Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is
voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be
allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court."

As regards the statements, the first proviso enables the Magistrate to withhold any part thereof referred to
in clause (iii), from the accused on being satisfied with the note and the reasons specified by the
investigating officer as predicated in subsection (6) of Section 173. However, when it comes to furnishing
of documents submitted by the investigating officer alongwith police report, the Magistrate can withhold
only such document referred to in clause (v), which in his opinion, is "voluminous". In that case, the
accused can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either personally or through his
pleader in Court. In other words, Section 207 of the 1973 Code does not empower the Magistrate to
withhold any "document" submitted by the investigating officer alongwith the police report except when it
is voluminous. A fortiori, it necessarily follows that even if the investigating officer appends his note in
respect of any particular document, that will be of no avail as his power is limited to do so only in respect
of 'statements' referred to in subsection (6) of Section 173 of the 1973 Code."


12. In the statement recorded during the investigation, all the witnesses of
fact including the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant who is the father of
the deceased has supported the prosecution version and recorded their
statement in support of the prosecution and against the revisionist. The
statement of the formal witnesses S.I. Vikash Sharma and Constable
Rooman Singh have safeguard one of the accused Tarun and to save from
the crowed they took him alongwith them. The witnesses of facts
supported the prosecution story and recorded their statement against the
revisionist.

13. After duly investigation of the matter, the charge-sheet has been filed
                                                                                          CRLR No. 2010 of 2025
                                                                  7


                                    against the accused-revisionist. The allegation of the offences and
                                    evidences collected during the investigation are very serious in nature.
                                    There is consistency of the fact witnesses who has recorded their
                                    statement and the charge-sheet has been filed. Any final interpretation
                                    or the appreciation of the fact or any deficiency in the prosecution
                                    story, if any, that could be appreciated after the completion of the
                                    entire evidence. At this stage, there appears to be sufficient evidence to
                                    initiate the trial against the revisionist. There is no illegality or
                                    irregularity in the impugned order.

                                    14. The instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is
                                    accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                           (Abdul Shahid,J.)
                                    February 9, 2026
                                    n.u.




Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad