Allahabad High Court

BUDHAI MAURYA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The revision is dismissed as being devoid of merit, with no illegality found in the trial court’s order.

Summary

Budhai Maurya and two others filed a criminal revision challenging the Additional Session Judge’s order dated 31.05.2025 that rejected their application to contest the charge sheet. The revisionists alleged that the FIR and subsequent charge sheets were based on false allegations, that independent witness statements were uncorroborated by medical reports, and that the investigating officer acted with malafide intent. The State contended that the FIR correctly named the accused, that serious injuries were documented, and that a charge sheet can be framed on a prima facie basis without full trial scrutiny. The High Court examined the material, noting that at the charge‑framing stage only a prima facie case is required and that no illegality was evident in the trial court’s order. Consequently, the Court held the revision to be devoid of merit and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Additional Session Judge rejecting the revisionists' application is illegal or void.
Whether a charge sheet can be framed on the basis of uncorroborated witness statements without medical evidence.
Whether a criminal revision can be dismissed for lack of merit despite the revisionists' non‑appearance.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal revision
charge sheet
prima facie case
false allegations
malafide investigation
IPC sections 323, 504, 452, 506, 325, 307
trial court order
dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5010 of 2025

Budhai Maurya And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Siddharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jai Prakash Mishra

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. List revised.

2. None appeared for the revisionists even in the revised call.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present.

4. Since this is criminal revision and it can not be dismissed in default, but it
to be decided on merit.

5. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the
judgment and order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge, Court No. 3, Azamgarh, in Session Case No. 636 of 2024
(State Versus Budhai Maurya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 338
of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 452, 506, 325, 307 I.P.C., Police Station
Phoolpur, District Azamgrh, whereby learned court below has rejected the
application of the revisionists bearing application No. 5Kha.

6. As per memo of revision in this case first information report was lodged
against the revisionists with false allegation and in investigation, no witness
stated about the involvement of the present revisionists for the commission
of the offence. During the course of the investigation, independent witnesses
account has been introduced by the investigating officer and after fifteen
days, the revisionists were falsely implicated under Section 307 I.P.C. The
investigating officer has acted upon the statements of the independent
witnesses and without any support of the medical report, submitted charge
CRLR No. 5010 of 2025
2

sheet in wrongful manner under Section 307 I.P.C. Earlier charge sheet
bearing No. 303 of 2023, under Sections 325, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. was
submitted after perusing the credible evidence available on record and
subsequent charge sheet bearing No. 303A of 2023 was submitted without
any evidence, only on the basis of statements of independent witnesses those
are not corroborated with the medical report. It shows malafide intention of
the investigating officer for the reason best known to them. Learned trial
court has also not considered all these facts but passed the order in question
illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial
court dated 31.05.2025 and allow the revision.

7.Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contended that in this case the
revisionists were named in the first information report and there is clear
allegation against them for making assault by entering into the house of the
informant, inflicting injuries to Shrikanti Devi and Rajesh Kumar Maurya on
their head. The injuries on the person of the injured being serious, referred
from Primary Health Center to District Hospital where they were provided
treatment. The investigating officer has collected the sufficient material
during the course of the investigation and then filed charge sheet. The injury
was found on the right side of forehead of the Shrikanti Devi and other five
injuries on her person. Likewise on the forehead of Rajesh Kumar Maurya,
there were injuries on left side of skull and two other injuries were in the
nature of contusion. In the X-ray report of the injured Rajesh Kumar
Maurya, fracture was seen in left distal part of the second meta corpal bone.
On the basis of the seriousness of the injuries on the person of the injured,
the investigating officer filed charge sheet under Sections 325, 323, 452,
504, 506, 307 I.P.C. At the stage of framing of the charges, only prima facie
case is to be seen, but the scrutiny of the material is not possible as in the
trial. Learned trial court has considered all these material on record and then
passed the order in question since there is no illegality.

8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2, as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, order dated
31.05.2025, it appears that revisionists were named in the first information
report for causing injuries to the injured persons, namely Shrikanti Devi and
Rajesh Kumar Maurya. During the course of medical examination, injuries
were found on their head that is vital part of the body. There were some
CRLR No. 5010 of 2025
3

other injuries on their person. On taking into account the injuries on the
person of the injured, the statement of the informant and the injured persons
and other witnesses, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet and
learned trial court has also considered the material on record as collected
during the course of investigation with a view to find out the prima facie
case against the revisionists. At the stage of framing of the charges, only
prima facie case is to be seen. The scrutiny of material is not required equal
to the standard as during trial. Even on grave suspicion, charge can be
framed. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order,
but this revision being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
April 23, 2026
T.S.

Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…