Allahabad High Court
Sudhakar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144864
Reserved on: 31.07.2025
Delivered on: 22.08.2025
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2260 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sudhakar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhananjay Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-4, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 255 of 2019 (State Vs. Balram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Manda, District-Allahabad, whereby the discharge application filed by revisionist in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by Court below.
2. I have heard Mr. Rajeev Chadhdha, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dhananjay Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Satya Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.
3. Perused the record.
4. The matter was heard on previous occasions at length and in detail.
5. Counsel for the revisionist/ the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 in support of and in opposition to present criminal revision made varied submissions. Since the present criminal revision can be decided on a short point, therefore, the Court is not dealing with the various submissions urged by the counsel for the parties in support of and in opposition to the present criminal revision.
6. Record shows that first informant-opposite party-2 lodged an FIR dated 24.01.2017, which was registered as Case Crime No. 55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 395, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station-Manda, District-Allahabad. In the aforesaid FIR, 5 persons namely - (1) Balram, (2) Sudhakar i.e. revisionist herein, (3) Anil Kumar, (4) Bholanath and (5) Manish Kumar were nominated as named accused, whereas, 4-5 unknown persons were also arraigned as accused.
7. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He recorded the statement of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima-facie established. He, therefore, opined to submit the charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 31.08.2017 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby named accused Balram, Anil Kumar, Bholanath and Manish Kumar were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC. However, Investigating Officer concluded that since accused Sudhakar is a police personnel, therefore, the prosecution sanction in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required. Accordingly, aforementioned accused i.e. Sudhakar was not charge sheeted along with the other co-accused.
8. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer against revisionist Sudhakar, whereby he has been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
9. Feeling aggrieved by above, revisionist Sudhakar filed a discharge application dated 30.01.2019 before Court below in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge in above-mentioned complaint case.
10. Aforementioned discharge application was opposed by the prosecution. However, no written objection was filed by the prosecution or first informant. Ultimately, Court below, upon evaluation and examination of the facts pleaded in the discharge application in the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court (referred to in the impugned order), rejected the discharge application filed by revisionist, vide order dated 19.12.2022.
11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 19.12.2022 passed by Court below, revisionist has approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
12. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has simply noted the facts of the case, the opposition raised by the prosecution to the said application and thereafter referred to several judgments of Supreme Court and this Court and ultimately, recorded an abrupt conclusion that no ground for discharge has been made out. It is thus apparent that no attempt was made by Court below to peruse the record.
13. Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2022) 15 SCC 720 has clearly observed that Court, while deciding a discharge application is not to act as a post office but has to look into the papers accompanying the police report to find out whether any offence is made out against an accused, or whether there is such material on record to sustained the trial of accused. Observation made by Court in paragraph 15 of the aforesaid report are relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same are reproduced herein under;-
"15. 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 Samal5]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be."
14. When the order impugned is examined in the light of above, it is explicitly clear that Court below has not adverted to the papers accompanying the police report. In view of above, the procedure adopted by Court below in deciding the discharge application filed by revisionst is contrary to the mandate issued by Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai (Supra). As such, the order impugned cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be quashed.
15. As a result, the present criminal revision succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
16. It is, accordingly, allowed.
17. The order impugned dated 19.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-4, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 255 of 2019 (State Vs. Balram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Manda, District-Allahabad shall stand quashed.
18. Court below shall decide the discharge application filed by accused-revisionist afresh in the light of the observations made herein above.
Order Date :- 22.08.2025
Vinay
