Created by Fuzzy Cloud

LegalDesk AI Logo Legal Desk AI

Allahabad High Court

KARUNASHANKAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided
Bench
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The trial court correctly rejected the discharge application as there was a prima facie case based on the victim's statements, and no illegality or impropriety was found.

Summary

The revisionist, Karunashankar Gupta, filed a criminal revision under section 227 of the CrPC challenging the Additional District and Sessions Judge's order rejecting his application for discharge in a case arising from FIR No. 504 of 2020. The FIR, lodged by the victim, alleged physical relations without consent and included charges under sections 323, 406, 376 and 511 IPC, but the charge sheet ultimately contained only section 406 IPC. The victim’s statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC reiterated the allegation of non‑consensual physical relations, which the trial court considered sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The revisionist argued that the FIR was delayed and that the alleged rape charge was not substantiated, contending that the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application. The High Court held that at the charge‑framing stage the court may examine the material on record to determine a prima facie case and found the victim’s statements credible, concluding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Issues considered

  • Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for discharge under section 227 CrPC on the basis of the FIR and victim's statements.
  • Whether a prima facie case can be established at the charge‑framing stage by relying on the victim's statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
  • Whether the alleged offences under sections 376/511 IPC were made out and should have been considered for discharge.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal revision
  • section 227 CrPC
  • discharge application
  • prima facie case
  • charge framing
  • Indian Penal Code
  • delay in FIR
  • physical relations without consent

Judgment

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2942 of 2026



Karunashankar Gupta
                                                   .....Revisionist(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Opposite
                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)             :   Vinod Kumar Shukla
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. for the State and perused the material on record.

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
17.03.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court First, Varanasi on an application u/s 227
Cr.P.C. for discharge in Session Trial No.864 of 2025 (State vs.
Karunashankar Gupta) arising out of Case Crime No.504 of 2020,
Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi,by which learned trial
court has rejected the application for discharge.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this
case the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself but there was no
allegation of commission of rape against the revisionist in the
F.I.R. except an attempt to establish physical relations as a result
F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323, 406, 376/511 I.P.C. During
the course of the investigation, the offence u/s 376/511 I.P.C. was
not found to be made out as a result charge sheet was filed u/s
406 I.P.C. only. The victim made improvement in her statement
before the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also before the learned
Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the revisionist
established physical relations with her. In this way, the statement
of the revisionist cannot be said to be reliable. Further submitted
                                                    CRLR No. 2942 of 2026
                           2


that the F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay which creates
doubt in the whole prosecution story. During the course of trial,
learned trial court has summoned the revisionist u/s 376, 506
I.P.C. also for which he has moved and application for discharge
but it has been rejected illegally without taking into consideration
the contents of F.I.R. and also the statements of the victim,
therefore, request to set aside the order dated 17.03.2026 passed
by the learned trial court and allow the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended
that the F.I.R. cannot be said to be an encyclopedia. In the F.I.R.,
there is version that the revisionist tried to establish physical
relations with her and during the course of investigation when her
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. she clearly
stated that the revisionist established physical relations with her
four times against her will and also he used to administer
medicine. In the statement as recorded by the learned Magistrate
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has again made similar statement regarding
establishment of physical relations by the revisionist with her
without her consent. The learned trial court has considered the
statement as made by the victim herself against the revisionist
and then passed the order in question rejecting the application for
discharge. Since, at the stage of framing of charge only prima
facie case is to be seen and the learned court is not required to
appreciate the evidence or material on record as during the course
of trial. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed
by the learned trial court.

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 F.I.R., the statements of
the victim as recorded by the I.O. during the course of
investigation and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as recorded before the learned
Magistrate, it transpires that the victim herself has made clear cut
statement against the revisionist to establish physical relation
with her against her will that is the reason learned trial court has
rejected the application for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. At the stage
of framing of charge, the material on record is to be scrutinized
by the learned court only to find out the prima facie case against
                                                                                             CRLR No. 2942 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                        the accused but it is not to be scrutinized as during the course of
                                        trial. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and the
                                        law on the point and then passed the order dated 17.03.2026.
                                        There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order in
                                        question but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be
                                        dismissed.

                                        Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission
                                        stage itself.


                                        May 6, 2026
                                        Ashok Gupta
                                                                          (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.