Allahabad High Court
JITENDRA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANOJ BAJAJ
Holding
The High Court held that the variation in dates and FIR delay do not merit discharge and that the trial court was justified in framing charges based on the suspicion evident in the record.
Summary
The revision petition filed by Jitendra and others challenged the order of the Additional Session Judge who had framed charges against them under IPC sections 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506. The petitioners argued that the date of the alleged incident was inconsistent in witness statements and that the FIR was lodged four days after the incident, contending that these defects warranted discharge at the charge‑framing stage. The High Court held that a discrepancy in dates and a delayed FIR do not preclude the prosecution from proceeding, especially when the nature of injuries is evident. It reiterated settled law that at the charge‑framing stage only suspicion is required and the trial court had properly examined the record before framing charges. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether a variation in the date of occurrence and a delayed FIR justify discharge of the accused at the charge‑framing stage.
- Whether mere suspicion is sufficient for the trial court to frame charges under the IPC.
- Whether the revision petition challenging the charge‑framing order should be entertained.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 324, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- charge framing
- revision petition
- IPC
- suspicion
- FIR delay
- date of occurrence
- discharge of accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 285 of 2026
Jitendra And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Devendra Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Sharma
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
1. Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned
judgment/order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Session
Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 3, District-Budaun in Session
Trial No. 1709 of 2025 (State of U.P. versus Jitendra Pal Singh & Others)
arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2023 under Sections 323/34, 324/34,
308/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Budaun whereby the trial
court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the
prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place on 14.10.2023 whereas the
medical record of the injured is dated 13.10.2023. He further submits that
some of the witnesses described the date of occurrence as 14.10.2023
whereas some have stated that it took place on 13.10.2023. According to the
learned counsel, the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C.
were added subsequently.
3. That apart, it is emphasized that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 4
days on 18.10.2023, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners have been
falsely implicated, and their application seeking discharge has been
erroneously dismissed by the trial court, and charges have been framed
against them.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering his
submission, this Court does not find any merit in the revision petition as the
medical record collected during investigation reflects that one of the injured,
namely, Lavi Patel has in all suffered six injuries.
CRLR No. 285 of 2026
2
5. That apart, the variation in the date of occurrence at the stage of framing
of charges cannot be attached much significance as in the given background
of the case, particularly, the nature of injuries, it would not be a case for
discharge of the accused as prosecution deserves opportunity to discharge its
onus to bring home the guilt of the accused person.
6. By now, it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges only
suspicion is enough, therefore, considering the nature of allegations, contents
of the F.I.R. wherein the petitioners are named, no case is made out for
interference with the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the trial
court. A reading of the impugned order would show that the trial court has
carefully analyzed the record of the case while proceeding to frame charges
against the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of
the case, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
April 20, 2026
SY
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SWETA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…