Allahabad High Court

RAMCHET AND 4 OTHERSversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

The trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction and did not commit any material illegality in rejecting the discharge application.

Summary

Ramchet and four others filed a criminal revision challenging the trial court's order rejecting their discharge application in a complaint under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 and 451. The revisionists argued that the complainant’s statements under Sections 200 and 244 of the CrPC contained contradictory dates and times, creating a doubt about the incident and, they claimed, a ground to discharge the accused. The State contended that any discrepancy in the prosecution’s material must be examined only after evidence is led and cited the decision in State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police Station Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath. The High Court held that at the stage of a discharge application the court must accept the prosecution’s material at face value and assess whether it discloses the ingredients of an offence, not conduct a mini‑trial. Accordingly, the court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether contradictory statements of the complainant under Sections 200 and 244 CrPC warrant the discharge of the accused at the pre‑trial stage.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application despite the alleged inconsistencies.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 239, 244
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 451, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal revision
discharge application
material contradictions
probative value
charge framing
IPC offences
CrPC provisions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2961 of 2024

Ramchet And 4 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suneel Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, G.A.

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri
Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Ashutosh
Mishra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.

2. The revisionist Ramchet and four others have approached this court by
means of present criminal revision challenging the order dated 03.02.2024
passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Court No. 12, Azamgarh (herein above
referred as trial court) in Complaint Case No. 3398 of 2023, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 451 IPC, P.S. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh
wherein the trial court has rejected the discharge application of the
revisionists.

3. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that there are material
contradictions in the statement of complainant recorded under Sections
200 and 244 of Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that in his statement under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant mentions the date and time of the
incident as 01.05.2012 at 10.00 P.M. whereas in his statement under
Section 244 Cr.P.C., the incident stated to have occurred at 08.05.2012 at
10.00 A.M. So, the time of incident becomes doubtful, thereby creating
serious infirmities in the whole prosecution story. It is, therefore,
contended that no charge can be framed against the revisionists. It is thus
stated by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order
is liable to be set aside by this court invoking the revisional jurisdictional.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
CRLR No. 2961 of 2024
2

have vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submitted that if there
is any discrepancy regarding the date and time of incident, it must be
determined only after conclusion of evidence before the court. No
conclusive prove is required at this stage and has placed the reliance upon
the judgement of State of Karnataka Lokayukt Police Station
Bengaluru Vs. M.R. Hiremath 2019 AIR SC 2377 of para No. 23
which is quoted below:

" 23. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact
that the trial court was dealing with an application for
discharge under the provisions of section 239 of the CrPC,
1973. The parameters which govern the exercise of this
jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this
Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has been
brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the
material in order to determine whether the facts emerging
from the material taken on its face value, disclose the
existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence. In the State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh Rajan
2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 572: (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting
to the earlier decisions on the subject; this Court held:

"29...At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has
been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court
thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it
can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to
come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the
offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
CRLR No. 2961 of 2024
3

5. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of
the impugned order, this Court finds that at the stage of giving
consideration, the court has to only consider the papers of prosecution.
Consideration on papers of defence at this stage is unwarranted. The same
finding is based on the State of Karnataka (Supra).

6. In view of above, this court finds that the learned trial court has
exercised its power, neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor caused any
material illegality. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be
dismissed.

7. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
April 23, 2026
RPD

Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…