Allahabad High Court
SUNIL SHUKLA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The criminal revision is dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the order rejecting the discharge application stands.
Summary
Sunil Shukla and others filed a criminal revision challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting their application for discharge in a case under Sections 147, 323, 336, 427 and 307 IPC. They alleged that the FIR was false, motivated by an enmity over a shop, that the alleged theft charge under Section 380 IPC was not substantiated, and that the injuries were minor. The court first condoned a 23‑day delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On merits, the court held that the trial court was only required to assess prima facie material at the charge‑framing stage and that no illegality or impropriety was evident in the order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed at the admission stage, leaving the trial court’s order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 23 days in filing the revision can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the order rejecting the discharge application, based on the FIR and alleged injuries, is liable to be set aside.
- Whether the alleged false FIR and lack of evidence on theft under Section 380 IPC render the charge of Section 307 IPC untenable.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 323, 336, 380, 427
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- delay condonation
- Limitation Act
- false FIR
- enmity
- IPC sections 147 323 336 427 307 380
- admission stage dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 951 of 2026
Sunil Shukla And 3 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ved Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2026
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on the
point of delay.
The cause shown for delay in filing this revision after delay of 23 days
seems to be sufficient, therefore, the delay in filing of this revision is
condoned and the application u/s 5 Limitation Act is, hereby, allowed.
In Re: Criminal Revision
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2026
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in
Sessions Case No.696 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sunil Shukla & others)
arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 427,
307 I.P.C., Police Station Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar, by which the
application for discharge was rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the
dispute is related to a shop that is in possession of the opposite party Navin
Bhatia. On account of that enmity present F.I.R. has been lodged with false
allegatin of committing of marpit against the family members of the
revisionists. Further submitted that there was allegation of theft but the
money said to be stolen was found in the drawer that was the reason charge
CRLRD No. 951 of 2026
2
sheet was not filed u/s 380 I.P.C. which falsifies the whole allegation made
in the F.I.R. Further submitted that the person who brought the injured to the
doctor was Shashi Nagar whereas in the G.D. there is entry of some other
Home Guard. There is contradiction in the statement of G.D. writer and
other witnesses. The injuries are also simple in nature and no any fracture
was found on the head and chest of the injured. The offence u/s 307 I.P.C.
cannot be said to be made out even though the learned trial court has not
considered all these facts while passing the order in question in routine
manner that cannot be said to be lawful but being erroneous it is liable to be
set aside.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of
record, the contents of F.I.R. and the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by
learned trial court, it transpires that in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that
with intent to kill the informant, the accused persons assaulted him with
bricks and stones inflicting injuries on his person. During the course of
medical examination injuries were found on the head and chest of the injured
though in C.T. scan no fracture was found. At the stage of framing of charge,
the learned trial court is expected to make scrutiny of the material only with
a view to find out the prima faice case and no such appreciation of material
is required as is expected during the course of trial for final judgment. Even
on grave suspicion charge can be framed. On the basis of enmity, it can also
not be said that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the present case
since enmity is double edged weapon which can be used for false
implication and also for committing an offence. At the stage of
discharge/framing of charge no conclusion can be drawn about the effect of
enmity between the parties. In the order dated 06.01.2026, there appears no
any illegality or impropriety but this revision being devoid of merit is liable
to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
May 12, 2026
Ashok Gupta
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…