Mohd. Naim Ahamad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11222 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Naim Ahamad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177404
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4256 of 2022   
 
   Mohd. Naim Ahamad    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Arvind Yadav, R S Dubey, Savita Dubey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Shyamu Shukla   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 92
 
   
 
 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, none is present on his behalf.

2. Admit.

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Special Session Trial No. 798 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Naim Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 504, 506, 354A, 120B I.P.C., Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2020, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur whereby discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against unknown persons. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the informant and the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the informant as well as victim have not taken the name of the revisionist but the victim in her statement has taken the name of Mehtab Khan, Lalla and Abrar. It is also submitted that the victim was medically examined and in the medical report, no injury was found on her body. As per medical report, her age is about 17 years. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer without proper investigation and without collecting the sufficient evidence submitted charge sheet against the revisionist, Soeb Ali @ Lalla and Abrar Ahmad under Sections 363, 366, 323, 504, 506, 354A, 120B I.P.C., Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3/5 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2020 and exonerated the co-accused Mehtab. It is next submitted that the revisionist and other co-accused persons moved discharge application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Gorakhpur vide order dated 31.08.2022 and also framed charges against the revisionist under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the investigation of this case was conducted in the right and genuine manner by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist and two other accused persons. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

7. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the statements of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and the victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the trial court wherein the role of assault has been attributed to the revisionist and other co-accused persons. All the offences for which discharge application was rejected, are prima facie made out against the revisionist on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

11. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the revisionist during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

12. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

October 7, 2025

Rmk.