KALYAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5426 of 2026

Kalyan Singh And Another
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Shravan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and
Shri Rakesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
08.07.2026 of the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha
Nagar passed in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 (Gajendra Singh Bhati Vs.
Kalyan Singh and Others), under Section 406 I.P.C.

3. By the impugned order the learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge
application which has been moved on behalf of the revisionists/ accused and
has fixed the case for examination/ evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. It is
submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the earlier the
revisionists had filed discharge application which was rejected against which
the revisionists had preferred Criminal Revision No.167 of 2025. The
revision was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- Court No.2,
Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 23.02.2026 and the learned Trial
Court was directed to decide the discharge application afresh by speaking
order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court heard both the parties and again
rejected the discharge application of the revisionist vide impugned order
dated 08.07.2026.

4. It is submitted that the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is
contrary to the evidence recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. From the
evidence adduced by the complainant no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is
made out. It is stated that in fact Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) are
                                                           CRLR No. 5426 of 2026
                                 2


due upon complainant and the complaint has been filed to deter the
revisionists to initiate any proceeding for recovery of the aforesaid amount.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State has opposed and
submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists to frame
charge under Section 406 I.P.C, and with regard to framing of charge it is
the complaint and the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. there is
material and not statement which was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

6. It is settled law that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is
not required to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by
the prosecution, nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of such
material to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge
do not fall within the domain of the Court. In State of Orissa v. Debendra
Nath Padhi, 2005 (51) ACC 209, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a roving and fishing inquiry at the stage of framing
of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or discharge of the accused under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. is not permissible, as it would amount to a mini-trial at
the stage of framing of charge and would be contrary to the settled principles
of criminal jurisprudence. It is also well established that the assessment of
the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the
time of framing of charge can be undertaken only during the trial. A charge
can be framed even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded upon the
material available before the Court, which leads it to form a presumptive
opinion regarding the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged, therefore, learned trial court has not committed any
illegality and infirmity in passing the impugned order.

7. In view of the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and upon
perusal of record it appears that the matter relates to complaint case and the
revisionists was summoned under Section 406 IPC, thereafter, the evidence
was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and in view of the above, the
revisionists has prayed that no offence is made out against him. The learned
Trial Court has discussed all the material points with regard to disposal of
discharge application and has came to the conclusion that the evidence
adduced under Section 244 Cr.P.C., prima facie, make out the offence
punsihable under Section 406 I.P.C.
                                                                                             CRLR No. 5426 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    8. At the stage of framing of charge, it is the evidence which was recorded
                                    under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and the complaint is material to form an opinion
                                    to frame charge or not. The evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202
                                    Cr.P.C. is not very material at this stage, therefore, the contention of the
                                    revisionists in this regard has no force. The revisionists/ accused has stated
                                    that money was due upon the complainant and to deter him to initiate any
                                    proceeding for recovery of the aforesaid amount this complaint was filed,
                                    this fact requires appreciation of evidence, which can be done only after
                                    evidence is led by both the parties, therefore, this contention also has no
                                    force, at this stage.

                                    9. In view of the above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
                                    order and it does not suffers from any perversity calling for any interference
                                    of this Court

                                    10. Therefore, this Criminal Revision has no force and is, accordingly,
                                    dismissed.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    AdityaG
                                                                                              (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad