Dismissed¶¶15

Aditya Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2025CRLR/2202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed by Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.); challenge to dismissal of discharge application by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, Sections 452, 398, 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS Kotwali Nagar); contention that no case under Section 308 IPC and charge under it would be per se illegal rejected; at charge-framing stage only prima facie case examined; gravity of injuries cannot be ascertained at that stage, open during trial; no infirmity found in order dated 11.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

There is an injury report in respect of the injured persons and the gravity of the injuries cannot be ascertained at this stage; the matter remains open to the revisionist to take up during the course of trial. ¶¶14

Aditya Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.03.2024 dismissing the revisionist's discharge application suffers from any infirmity, given the revisionist's contention that no case under Section 308 IPC is made out against him and any charge under that section would be per se illegal. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

No infirmity is found in the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda dismissing the revisionist's discharge application.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶¶14

Key takeaways

At the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie case is to be seen by the court concerned.ratio¶¶14
The revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.), October 10, 2025 — Criminal Revision No. 2202 of 2024 (Aditya Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another) directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda, in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, under Sections 452, 398, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda), whereby the revisionist's discharge application was dismissed. The revisionist contended that no case under Section 308 IPC was made out against him and that framing of charge under that section would be per se illegal; the A.G.A. urged that the question of charge be decided with respect to all accused persons and that the nature and gravity of injuries be examined during trial. The Court held that there is an injury report and the gravity of the injuries cannot be ascertained at this stage, remaining open to the revisionist during trial; at the stage of framing of charge only a prima facie case is to be seen; no infirmity was found in the impugned order. The revision was held devoid of merit and dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2202 of 2024

¶3

Aditya Kumar Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Anil Kumar, Prateek Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 90

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State, and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda, in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, under Sections 452, 398, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been dismissed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, no case whatsoever under Section 308 IPC is made out in respect of the revisionist and, therefore, if the charge is framed in respect of Section 308 IPC, the same would be per se illegal. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that, once the evidence of few witnesses is complete, then only the nature of charge can be ascertained and the charge can be altered at any stage of trial. No other ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the present revision and prayed that the order dated 11.03.2024 is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A appearing for the State has submitted that, so far as, the instant revision is concerned, the same has been filed by the revisionist, as there are other accused persons as well, and therefore, the question of chargre has to be considered and decided in respect of all the accused persons and cannot be decided by way of skeleton process, being adopted by the revisionist herein. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that, if the nature and gravity of injuries is concerned, the same can be examined during the course of trial and after conclusion of trial, the learned trial court is of the opinion that nature and gravity of injuries is such that, no case under

¶11

CRLR No. 2202 of 2024

¶12

¶13

Section 308 IPC be made out, in that event, the accused persons would be liable to be acquitted in respect of Section 308 IPC. Learned A.G.A. has lastly submitted that, the revisionist will have an ample opportunity during the course of trial to adduce evidence in their favour and also cross examine the witnesses and also submits that only prima facie case is to be seen, at the time of framing of charge.

¶14

Having considered the rival contentions, it can be seen that, there is an injury report in respect of the injured persons and the gravity of the injuries cannot be ascertained at this stage, but the same is open to the revisionist to take the matter during the course of trial, at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to be seen by the court concerned. Hence, no infirmity is found in the present order dated 11.03.2024, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banda.

¶15

The present revisions is devoid of merit and is dismissed . October 10, 2025 Vikram

¶16

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶17

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

Aditya Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Kumar Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases