VIVEK ALIAS KAMAL SINGH SHYORANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2597 of 2026

Vivek Alias Kamal Singh Shyoran
                                                   .....Revisionist(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Opposite
                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)             :   Gulab Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A.

Court No. - 86
       HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned
A.G.A. on the point of admission.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the
order dated 03.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad in Criminal Case
No. 46752 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 781 of 2024,
under Sections 351(2), 55, 333, 61(2) BNS, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Moradabad.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this
case, he has falsely been implicated by the informant Smt.
Santosh Devi who is Block Pramukh and lodged the F.I.R. by
using her position. The husband and son of the informant are in
jail. She has lodged the present F.I.R. with false allegations that
he went to the house and tried to blackmail her for making help
through Jagdip by disposing of Neeraj who is witness in that case.
Further submitted that there is no any material on record to
support this allegation. During the course of investigation, the
informant made statement but there are so many contradictions in
the statements of the informant. An application under Section 528
BNSS No. 39731 of 2024 was also filed before this Court to
quash the entire proceedings of the case but the application was
dismissed then he filed an application for discharge before the
learned trial court on that application impugned order was passed
                                                     CRLR No. 2597 of 2026
                           2


by learned trial court without applying its judicial mind,
therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial
court on an application for discharge dated 03.02.2026 and allow
the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended
that in this case, though the husband and son of the informant are
in jail and Neeraj is witness in that case. The revisionist went to
the house of the informant and tried to blackmail her by
extending benefit in her favour through Jagdip who would
dispose of Neeraj. In case, she did not agree, he gave threat to her
that husband and son will be punished with death or life
imprisonment and also threatened her then she lodged the present
F.I.R. against the revisionist. At the stage, of framing of charge,
the learned trial court is to examine the material collected during
the course of investigation only with a view to find out a prima
facie case. The revisionist has raised all these issues before this
Court when the application under Section 528 BNSS No. 39731
of 2024 was being heard and remedy was refused. The learned
trial court has passed the order in question on the basis of
material available on record. There is no any illegality or
impropriety in the order.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well
as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the contents of application
for discharge, the contents of F.I.R. and the statement made by
the informant, it transpires that the revisionist went into the house
of the informant whose husband and son are in jail and tried to
blackmail her by removing the witness Neeraj from the way
through the help of Jagdip. She was also threatened that her
husband and son will be punished with death or imprisonment for
life, in case, she did not agree and also threatened her. During the
course of investigation, C.C.T.V. footage was also examined by
the Investigating Officer in which it was found established that
revisionist went into the house of the informant and was making
conversation with her. All these facts were taken into
consideration by the learned trial court while passing the order in
question on application for discharge. At the stage of framing of
                                                                                            CRLR No. 2597 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                        charge, the learned trial court is to scrutinize the material
                                        collected during the course of investigation only with a view to
                                        find out prima facie case but not as during the trial. Even on
                                        grave suspicion charge can be framed. There appears no any
                                        illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court
                                        dated 03.02.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable
                                        to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

                                        Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

                                        May 5, 2026
                                        Anurag Singh
                                                                          (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad