Dismissed¶9

Gulab Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025CRLR/7853/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP High Court criminal revision dismissed; rejection of Section 227 Cr.P.C. discharge applications upheld in Sessions Trial 349/2023 (case crime 336/2022, Sections 323/504/506/308 IPC, PS Sidhari, Azamgarh); key ruling: no finding on fact possible at criminal revision stage; counsel's no-bone-injury argument and Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 reference not acted upon.

What did the court decide?

No finding on fact could be given at the stage of criminal revision; adjudication of the injury/fact-based objections raised by the revisionists was beyond the scope of this proceeding. ¶9

Gulab Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 7.10.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Azamgarh rejecting the revisionists' discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was free from irregularity or illegality and could stand, with charges to be framed on 4.11.2025. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

No finding on fact could be given at the stage of criminal revision; adjudication of the injury/fact-based objections raised by the revisionists was beyond the scope of this proceeding.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 7.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2023 was found to have no irregularity or illegality, and the criminal revision was accordingly dismissed.

¶9

Key takeaways

The judgment records investigation-stage statements of the complainant and injured Anil Gupta alleging head injury and unconsciousness, and observes that the very first FIR allegation was of head injury to a vital part, any injury on which could be fatal. Attribution of this passage is ambiguous in the text (it may be the Court's narration or a continuation of counsel's submissions); it is therefore flagged as unclear rather than asserted as a definitive holding.¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.), Criminal Revision No. 7853 of 2025, decided November 25, 2025: dismissed the revision filed by Gulab Yadav and 3 others against the order dated 7.10.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2023 (State Vs. Gulab Yadav & others), arising out of case crime no. 336 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh, whereby their discharge application (paper no. 7Kha) filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and 4.11.2025 fixed for framing of charges. Holding: no finding on fact could be given at the stage of criminal revision; the impugned order was found to have no irregularity or illegality and the revision was dismissed accordingly. Counsel's contention that the absence of fracture or bone injury negatived Section 308 IPC, his invocation of Section 308 IPC's seven-year punishment ceiling, and reliance on Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another- (2022) 10 SCC 51 (recorded in the course of his arguments) were not separately dealt with by this Court, which confined itself to the bar on fact-finding at the revision stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7853 of 2025

¶3

Gulab Yadav And 3 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

Under challenge is the impugned order dated 7.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2023 (State Vs. Gulab Yadav & others) arising out of case crime no. 336 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh rejecting the discharge application-paper no. 7Kha of the revisionists filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and fixing date for framing charges against them on 4.11.2025.

¶11

Brief contents of the FIR is that incident took place on 9.9.2022 at about 7.30 pm and the FIR was lodged on 10.9.2022 at 14.34 hours against the named accused persons/revisionists/Gulab Yadav, Puneet Yadav, Ajeet Yadav and Aman Yadav. In the FIR, there are allegations against all the accused persons that they had scolded and beaten with lathi and danda to Sandeep Gupta, Anil Gupta and Shani Yadav who had suffered injuries while Shani Yadav had also sustained injuries in his head. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons, under Section 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel fort he revisionists has vehemently argued that there is neither any fracture nor any bone injury on the injured persons, hence no case under Section 308 IPC is made out. He has further argued that opposite party no. 2 only wants that accused persons must go to the jail whereas it is pertinent to mention here that Section 308 IPC is an offence punishable up to seven years. It is next argued that Hon'ble the Apex Court has laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another- (2022) 10 SCC 51 that accused shall not be arrested in the offence which is punishable for seven years.

¶13

CRLR No. 7853 of 2025

¶14

¶15

As per the injury report, which is annexed as Annexure-2, injured Sandeep Gupta has suffered three injuries, which are as follows:

¶16

i. Stitched wound 1.5cm in length, three stitched present on right scalp. 7.0cm above right ear pinna, Adv-Xray Head AP & lateral CT Head;

¶17

ii. COP in chest Adv-Xray AP and lateral;

¶18

iii. COP left foot. Adv-Xray AP and lateral.

¶19

The NCCT Head which is annexed as Annexure-3 in which impression was given-MINIMAL SOFT TISSUE SWELLING IN PARIETAL REGION IN MIDLINE.

¶20

He has further submitted that in the CT Scan, which is annexed as Annexure-4 dated 17.10.2025, there is no bone injury.

¶21

The statement of the complainant recorded during investigation. The injured persons suffered injuries in body and also in head. Sandeep Yadav had become unconscious. The statement of injured/Anil Gupta was recorded during investigation in which he has stated that he had sustained injury on his head and become unconscious. By all these evidences collected during investigation and the very first allegation made in the FIR that injured has suffered head injury which is a vital part. Any injury on the head could be fatal.

¶22

No finding on fact could be given at the stage of criminal revision. Hence the impugned order dated 7.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2023 (State Vs. Gulab Yadav & others) arising out of case crime no. 336 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh is having no irregularity or illegality and the revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶23

November 25, 2025 M. Tarik

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulab Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Yadav and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Netrapal vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukeem and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another