Dismissed¶17

Mahesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025CRLA/10131/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10131 of 2025 (decided November 6, 2025) dismisses appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act challenging rejection of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; framing of charge stage — correctness/sufficiency of evidence not to be weighed; Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)va SC/ST Act; Baghpat; no interference at charge-framing stage.

What did the court decide?

While considering discharge, the court cannot weigh the correctness or sufficiency of the prosecution evidence; the governing principle is whether, if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution were believed, it would constitute the offence, and the truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged only at the stage of trial. ¶16

Mahesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10131 of 2025

Mahesh And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 86

¶8

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 whereby the discharge application moved by the applicants/appellants has been rejected in Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, P.S. Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the application moved by the appellants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. whereby they have prayed to the court to pass discharge order in favour of the appellants in the aforesaid matter. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that the present prosecution of the applicants at the hands of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the applicants. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is made out from the allegations set out in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2.

¶12

CRLA No. 10131 of 2025

¶13

¶14

He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge is wholly illegal, capricious and against weight of evidence on record. He has further submitted that it transpires that order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has contended that the discharge application moved by the appellants has been rejected and the same does not suffer from any error of law and moreover in case the applicants have any grievance, they will have various opportunities for redressal of their grievance during course of trial.

¶16

Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court and discharge the accused appellants but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charge.. The impugned orders passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant no interference by this Court.

¶17

Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of appellants. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶19

November 6, 2025 RavindraKSingh

¶20

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

Mahesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaidev and Another vs State of Up and Another

Shivankar Kumar @ Shivang @ Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Gagan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Mohid and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Ali and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another