Allahabad High Court
ABDUL HAKEEM ALIAS MUNNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA
Holding
The revision is dismissed as the charge has already been framed, making the application for discharge infructuous.
Summary
Abdul Hakeem alias Munna filed a criminal revision under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting his application for discharge. He argued that the trial court failed to apply judicial mind to the facts and evidence. The State opposed, contending that the charge had already been framed, rendering the request for discharge moot. The High Court, after hearing both sides, agreed with the State, finding that the revision was without merit because the charge framing made the discharge application infructuous. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge is maintainable after the charge has been framed in the trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge
- Section 227 Cr.P.C.
- charge framing
- procedural law
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2749 of 2025
Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Munna Babu
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Munna Babu,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. Revisionist Abdul Hakeem alias Munna has approached this Court by
means of present Criminal Revision challenging the validity of the
impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial
Court") in Sessions Trial No.205 of 2025, State v. Abdul Hakeem alias
Munna, whereby the Trial Court rejected the revisionist's application for
discharged moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision
has been filed on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in
the eye of law. The Trial Court passed the impugned order without
applying the judicial mind and considering the facts and evidence
available on record. It is thus contended by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court
invoking revisional jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the
learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the criminal revision
and apprised the Court that the charge in the case has already been
framed. Therefore, the question of discharge has now become infructuous.
CRLR No. 2749 of 2025
2
5. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could
not dislodge the factual and legal submission of the learned A.G.A.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties
and the fact that the charge has already been framed in the matter, this
Court finds merit in the submission of the learned A.G.A. The revision is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is dismissed.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…