PRASHANT KUMAR ALISH DEEPU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

              CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3773 of 2024

Prashant Kumar Alish Deepu And Another
                                                      .....Revisionist(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)             :   Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :   G.A.

Court No. - 45
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite
service of notice.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 37300 of 2022 (State Vs.
Prashant Kumar and another), arises out of Case Crime No. 1079 of
2021, under Sections 323, 504 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station
Majhola, District Moradabad, whereby the discharge application
dated 29.05.2023 preferred by the revisionists has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the allegations
levelled against the revisionists are false and concocted and that the
material collected during investigation does not disclose the
commission of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the
learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the material available on
record in its correct perspective and has mechanically rejected the
discharge application.

5. Per Contra, Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted
that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge
application after considering the material available on record and that
a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. It is submitted
                                                     CRLR No. 3773 of 2024
                              2


that the pleas sought to be raised by the revisionists are essentially
matters of defence, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of
discharge.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. At the stage of consideration of discharge application, the Court is
only required to examine the material collected during investigation
with a view to ascertain whether the same discloses sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, the Court is not
required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or
conduct a mini trial.

8. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, after considering the
material available on record, has found sufficient ground to proceed
against the revisionists and has accordingly rejected the discharge
application. The submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionists
essentially relate to the credibility of the prosecution version,
appreciation of the statements of the witnesses and the evidentiary
value of the material collected during investigation.

9. Such pleas are matters of defence and cannot appropriately be
adjudicated upon at the stage of discharge. The truthfulness of the
allegations and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by
the prosecution can be properly examined only after the parties have
led their evidence before the learned trial court. At this stage, the
Court is not expected to weigh the evidence as it would do after
conclusion of the trial.

10. Having regard to the material available on record, this Court finds
that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality or jurisdictional
error in rejecting the discharge application. The impugned order does
not suffer from any perversity or manifest error of law warranting
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is,
accordingly, rejected.

12. The judgment and order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 37300 of 2022, is
                                                                                        CRLR No. 3773 of 2024
                                                                 3


                                    hereby affirmed.

                                    13. It is clarified that the observations made herein above are
                                    confined only to the adjudication of the present revision and shall not
                                    prejudice the case of either party before the learned trial court.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Rama Kant
                                                                               (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad