Dismissed¶16

Hatam Bhati Alias Hatam Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2025CRLR/6376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, CRLR No. 6376 of 2025, Abdul Shahid J., decided 13.10.2025. Charge-framing challenge under Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons); FIR under Sections 323/307 IPC; discharge under 323/307 but charge under 326 for jaw injury; no illegality found; revision dismissed; ACJM-II Gautam Buddh Nagar; Case Crime No.100 of 2021, P.S. Surajpur.

What did the court decide?

There is an injury on the jaw; Sections 323 and 307 IPC had already been removed; the trial has to proceed under Section 326, and the final finding is to be given by the learned trial court. ¶15

Hatam Bhati Alias Hatam Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6376 of 2025

¶3

Hatam Bhati Alias Hatam Singh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Uma Nath Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 91

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.8.2025 passed by ACJM-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No.2147 of 2022 (State vs. Ram Vir and others) arising out of Case Crime No.100 of 2021 under Section 326 IPC, Police Station-Surajpur, DistrictGautam Buddh Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there is no grievous injury and there is no intention to kill. Hence, the finding of the trial court that the material is sufficient to frame the charge under Section 326 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶11

On the contrary, learned AGA for the State opposed and stated that there was several injuries and one injury is also on the jaw and if the injury exaggerate, it may be dangerous to life.

¶12

The FIR was lodged under Section 323 and 307 IPC. The offence is of the year 2021. Learned trial court had considered the submission made by the revisionist before it and he had been discharged under Sections 323 and 307 IPC whereas learned trial court has found on the basis of evidence available before it that an offence under Section 326 IPC is made out and charge could be framed.

¶13

CRLR No. 6376 of 2025

¶14

¶15

In view of the impugned order and the facts of the case, there is injury on the jaw and Sections 323 and 307 IPC had already been removed. The trial has to be under Section 326 PC. The final finding could be given by the learned trial court. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶16

Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.

¶17

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶18

October 13, 2025 LN Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hatam Bhati Alias Hatam Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatam Bhati Alias Hatam Singh and 2 Others 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