KAPIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4316 of 2025

Kapil Kumar
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Jitendra Pratap
                                Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Tiwari, G.A.

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that opposite party no. 2
lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist and other accused persons vide Case
Crime No. 0004 of 2022 under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The
Investigating Officer, without conducting a thorough investigation,
submitted the charge sheet in a routine manner. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance. The revisionist filed a discharge application, which has been
rejected; hence, the present criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that opposite
party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the revisionist and other accused persons
on 01.01.2022 at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, which was registered
as Case Crime No. 0004 of 2022 under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 506
I.P.C. He has also submitted that a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed by Smt. Shivani Gaud against the revisionist and others (father and
brother of Smt. Shivani) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh, which was registered as Complaint Case
No. 254 of 2024 and is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the criminal revision.

4. In the said complaint, it is stated that when Shivani, along with her
husband (Hemendra Sharma), father-in-law (Dinesh Chandra Sharma), and
sister-in-law (Bhawna Sharma), went to their native place on 25.02.2024 at
about 4:00 P.M., the accused persons started abusing and beating her
                                                          CRLR No. 4316 of 2025
                                2


husband and father-in-law. The incident in the said Complaint Case No. 254
of 2024 is shown to have occurred on 25.02.2024 at about 4:00 P.M.
However, on that date the revisionist (Kapil) was appearing in the
Engineering Assistant Trainee (EAT) examination which was scheduled in
Delhi from 9:30 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. A copy of the admit card is annexed as
Annexure No. 5 to this revision. Thereafter, the complainant Smt. Shivani
filed an application stating that she was not interested in continuing the said
complaint; hence, it was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 28.06.2024
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh,
which is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said F.I.R. has
been lodged on false, fabricated and concocted grounds against the
revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also filed a certificate issued by
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, from the office of the Proctor dated
07.05.2025, which verifies as follows: "This is to certify that Mr. Kapil
Kumar was bonafide student of this university in the academic session 2021-
22 to 2023-24 of the class B.Sc. (Chemistry Hons.) bearing Enrolment No.
GJ-4719, Faculty No. 21CHBSA405 as per record of the AMU, Aligarh was
present in Sir Ross Masood Hall on 31.12.2021 at 11:35 pm to evening of
the 01.01.2022 which may be verified from the Main Gate Registrar of the
R. M. Hall and also cross verified by the concerned department of the
student. It is also mention here that Mr. Kapil Kumar was my student since
2019 to 2021 and I found that he is very sincere, dedicated, hardworking and
punctual student. It is further certified that as per record of Proctor Office
there is no any adverse report/case/enquiry pending against him."

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the marriage of the
sister of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2, and hence
the present F.I.R. has been filed against him on absolutely false, fabricated
and concocted grounds. Opposite party no. 2 wants to create undue pressure
upon the revisionist. Previously also a complaint was filed on false,
fabricated and concocted grounds, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the
request of the complainant Shivani under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
opposite party no. 2 filed the present case on the basis of false, fabricated
and concocted allegations.
                                                                CRLR No. 4316 of 2025
                                   3


8. It is certified by the Proctor of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, that
the revisionist Kapil Kumar was present from 31.12.2021 at 11:35 P.M. until
the evening of 01.01.2022 at Sir Ross Masood Hall within the campus of
AMU, Aligarh. Hence, it could not have been possible for him to commit
any offence on 01.01.2022 at 8:00 A.M. at a place which is 15–20
kilometres away from Sir Ross Masood Hall, AMU, Aligarh. There is
previous enmity between the parties.

9. It is settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. Previously also a
false and fabricated criminal complaint was filed, which was dismissed as
withdrawn.

10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and
another; 2022 (5) SCC 720 by Three Judges Bench,(Authored by Hon.
Surya Kant, J) held as under:-

     "12. At the outset, we may note that the High Court has dismissed the
     Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under section 397
     of Cr.P.C. The High Court did not examine the issue in detail to find out
     whether the continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process
     of law in this case. The impugned order cites the decision of this Court in
     Asian Resurfacing (supra) wherein it was noted as under:

     "Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely
     an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is
     not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397
     or 482 Cr.P.C.or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said
     jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to
     ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any
     manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge
     should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent
     error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter."

     13. It appears to us that while limiting the scope of a criminal revision to
     jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court apparently underappreciated
     the Judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra). We say so at least for two
     reasons. First, the material facts in the abovecited case dealt with a
     challenge to the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
     1988 ("POCA"). The cited judgment itself enlightens that not only is
     POCA a special legislation, but also contains a specific bar under Section
     19 against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Second, This Court
     in Asian Resurfacing (Supra) while expressing concern regarding the
     need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in our criminal law system,
     followed the ratio laid down in an earlier decision in Madhu Limaye V.
                                                           CRLR No. 4316 of 2025
                              4

State of Maharashtra as can be seen from the following extract: "

27. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly
conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order
framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be
interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482 CrPC, the
principle laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye V. State of
Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds the field.
Order framing charge may not be held to be purely an interlocutory order
and can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2)
CrPC or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a
constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with
an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in a
exceptional situation."
14. In Madhu Limaye (supra), this Court authoritatively held:-
"9... Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also
been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order
taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds
that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with
the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that
no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations
made or the evidence adduced in Court.
10. ....Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so,
that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing
processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that
inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercises for stopping the
criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the
accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not
operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure
the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is
immaterial.
15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra),
thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither
interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar
of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, this Court in the abovecited cases
has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with
inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of
justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases.
As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its
aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in
the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and
timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless,
does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should
                                                                                                    CRLR No. 4316 of 2025
                                                                       5

                                         be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is
                                         likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example,
                                         when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on
                                         record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes
                                         imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law.
                                         16. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the
                                         discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to
                                         sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient
                                         grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad
                                         probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the
                                         basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [ Union of India V.
                                         Prafulla Kumar Samal].Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to
                                         order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be. It is also held
                                         that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused."

                                    11. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of
                                    Madhya Pradesh and another; 2026 INSC 141. In paragraph no. 21 it held
                                    as under:-

                                         "Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing
                                         of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an
                                         abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and
                                         the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this
                                         stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on
                                         record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercise by
                                         default or out of caution alone. When the material placed before the
                                         Court, take at the face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an
                                         offence, the law expects the Court to have the clarity and courage to say
                                         so and to keep such a case aside."

                                    12. There is reasonable and lawful force in the contentions, averments and
                                    submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

                                    13. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 is liable to be set
                                    aside and is hereby set aside accordingly in respect of the revisionist Kapil
                                    Kumar only. The learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order.

                                    14. The criminal revision is hereby allowed.

                                    March 16, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                                      (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad