Allahabad High Court

ASHOK PURIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The revision was dismissed because the trial court had validly framed charges and a revision cannot re‑evaluate evidence, thus no illegality existed in the order rejecting the discharge application.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad dismissed a criminal revision filed by Ashok Puri challenging the Sessions Judge’s order rejecting his discharge application in a Section 306 IPC case. Puri argued that the FIR did not disclose any act of abetment under Sections 107 and 108 IPC and that the trial court’s order was illegal and arbitrary. The State contended that charges had already been framed, making the revision untenable under Section 228 CrPC, and cited the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that a revision cannot amount to a mini‑trial. The Court held that the trial court had properly framed charges after a detailed investigation and that re‑examining the evidence would constitute an impermissible mini‑trial. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the discharge application on the ground that the FIR does not disclose an offence of abetment of suicide under Sections 107 and 108 IPC.
Whether a criminal revision under Section 228 CrPC is maintainable after charges have been framed.
Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the High Court may re‑appreciate evidence (i.e., conduct a mini‑trial) in a criminal revision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 228
Indian Penal Code — s. 107, 108, 306

Subjects

abetment of suicide
Section 306 IPC
discharge application
criminal revision
Section 228 CrPC
mini‑trial
charge framing

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2024

Ashok Puri
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Sunil Kumar
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Awadhesh Prasad, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as
well learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/complainant.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the impugned
order dated 30.3.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in
Session Case No. 384 of 2024 ( State Vs. Ashok Puri and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Babina,
District Jhansi, whereby discharge application of the revisionist has been
rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned
order dated 30.3.2024 is not justifiable and it is illegal and arbitrary and is
liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that under the provisions of
Section 108 IPC, no case comes under the purview of abetter, so no case
under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. He has
submitted that ingredients of Section 107, 108 IPC does not attract the
version as laid down in the FIR so it can be said that no offence under
Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. Learned Sessions
Judge without going through the definition of the abettor as laid down
under Section 108 IPC, has passed the impugned order which is illegal
and arbitrary. In the entire case diary, there is no allegation against the
revisionist by which it can be said that the revisionist has abetted to the
deceased to commit suicide.
CRLR No. 2126 of 2024
2

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the
occurrence took place on 28.2.2023 when during the election period it has
been alleged that the revisionist has assaulted to the deceased and after
three days on 1.3.2023, the deceased gone in the forest and commit
suicide. The mobile phone of the deceased has been sent for forensic
laboratory, Agra, where the mobile has been returned to the Investigating
Officer with the reason that at Agra Laboratory, there is no facility for
checking of the mobile audio or video. Thereafter, the mobile has been
sent at Forensic Laboratory, Lucknow for investigation and till today, no
report has been received although there is a specific allegation that before
committing suicide, the deceased has prepared the photographs of his
suicide by his own mobile. The postmortem report and the statement of
the doctor clearly stated that the deceased has committed suicide and
there is no injury on the body of the deceased.

5. The FIR of the said incident was lodged promptly without any
unreasonable delay under Section 306 IPC by the opposite party
no.2/complainant against (1) Ashok Puri, (2) Pankaj Giri, (3) Dwarika
Puri and (4) Ramesh Puri. The revisionist/Ashok Puri is named in the said
FIR. There has been specific allegation against the revisionist/Ashok
Puri.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the allegation
made in the FIR are not specifically constitute an offence under section
306 IPC.

7. After a detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed against all the
accused persons under Section 306 IPC. It is also submitted before this
Court that discharge application has been rejected on 30.3.2023 and on
the same day, charges have also been framed.

8. Learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.2 have submitted that the charges are already framed,
hence the present criminal revision is not maintainable.

9. Learned trial court has passed a detail order that the deceased has been
mal-treated and he was also a candidate for bye-election and he suffered a
slap and thereafter, he feels very much humiliated and in continuation of
CRLR No. 2126 of 2024
3

that humiliation, he committed suicide.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied on law laid
down by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2183 of 2021 (Ravindra
Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and another)
connected with Application U/S 482 No. 13664 of 2021 (Ravindra
Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided
on 25.10.2021. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied on
paragraph no. 33 of the said judgment "that apart from above, when
framing of charge order is examined in the light of ambit and scope of
Section 228 Cr.P.C as defined by Apex Court in aforementioned
judgment, this Court is of considered opinion that at this stage, it cannot
be said that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against
applicant/revisionist. Arguments raised on behalf of applicant/revisionist,
the submissions urged by the learned AGA and Mr. S.N. Singh, learned
counsel representing opposite party no.2 will all have to be considered to
decide the correctness of order dated 4.9.2021. This exercise will itself
amount to mini trial, which is not permissible, while deciding the
correctness of an order passed in terms of Section 228 Cr.P.C. For the
facts and reasoned noted above, this Court dismissed the said revision.

11. In view of all consideration of facts and circumstances and provisions
of law, no meticulous appreciation of evidence which amounts to mini
trial is permissible at this stage. The charge sheet has been filed after due
investigation. Learned trial court has filed prima facie case and already
framed charges and dismissed the discharge application moved by the
revisionist.

12. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the
impugned order dated 30.3.2024. The criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed and it is dismissed.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 24, 2026
sfa/

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…