Dismissed¶18

Vimal Yadav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025CRLR/1032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision; discharge application dismissed; charge framed under Sections 147, 302/149 IPC; protest petition allowed after final report; FIR lodged after seven-month delay; defence of accident/motorcycle fall; murder of deceased; antemortem injuries per post-mortem; no independent witness; no interference at stage of framing of charge; revision dismissed; Allahabad High Court; CRLR No. 1032 of 2024; Harvir Singh, J.; Session Trial No. 384 of 2023; Case Crime No. 689 of 2012; Saharanpur; District Banda.

What did the court decide?

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and other material on record, this Court finds no ground and no interference with the impugned order is called for. ¶17

Vimal Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1032 of 2024

¶2

Vimal Yadav And Another	.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Saurabh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 93

¶4

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶5

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 22.12. 2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur in Session Trial No. 384 of 2023, (State vs. Juggilal Yadav and others), under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-banda, by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been dismissed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said first information report was lodged after seven months of the incident and the final report was submitted. However, on the acceptance of the protest petition, case has proceeded further and charge has been framed, vide order dated 5.1.2024. Besides the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Session Judge. The order of framing of charge dated 5.1.2024 has also been challenged in the present revision in respect of Case Crime No. 689 of 2012, under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C. and finally charge has been framed under sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C. against the revisionist and the trial in respect of S.T. No. 384 of 2023 is proceeding before the trial court. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that it was a case of mere accident and not an incident and no injury has been

¶8

CRLR No. 1032 of 2024

¶9

¶10

caused by the revisionists, that is why the final report has been submitted by the police. He also submitted that the incident is alleged to have been shown on 10.5.2012 at 10:00 P.M., whereas the alleged murder of the deceased is to be shown on 11.5.2012.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that there is no independent witness, so far as the incident is concerned and the cause of death has been shown as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased, however the injuries sustained by the deceased having been caused due to accident, when he was riding a motorcycle and not caused by the revisionist herein, therefore, the order rejecting the discharge application and subsequent charge framed, vide order dated 5.1.2024 are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that, initially the final report submitted by the police was based on incorrect facts and evidence that is why a prima facie case is made out and the protest petition of opposite party no. 2 was allowed and thereafter rejecting the discharge application, charge was framed against the revisionist, vide order dated 21.12.2023 and 5.1.2024 respectively. Both the orders have been passed in accordance with law, as a prima faice case made out against the revisionists. He further submitted that the deceased was called at the behest of revisionists and during night hours, the deceased was done to death, otherwise there was no occasion to call the deceased in the night as the place, where he was working usually closed in the evening and opens during office hours, but the deceased has been done to death in a pre planned manner and the said incident is being tried to be converted into an accident.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the postmortem report submitted by the doctor indicates that the death has been caused due to antemortem injuries. He also submitted that those injuries have been caused by the revisionists and have not been caused as a result of any accident, as alleged by the revisionists. He further submitted that, since the charge has already been framed and the trial is proceeded further in the matter. The revisionists will have sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in their support and they would be at liberty to cross examine the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the

¶14

CRLR No. 1032 of 2024

¶15

¶16

prosecution and therefore, the revisionists will have fair opportunity to defend themselves, hence no interference is warranted with the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 at this stage of framing of charge and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record, this Court finds no ground and therefore no interference with the impugned order is called for.

¶18

Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.

¶19

September 23, 2025 Faridul

¶20

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vimal Yadav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Yadav and Another v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases