Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home and Vigilance) Lko.and Another

¶1

Page No. 1 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46531

¶3

Court No. - 11

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 825 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shravan Kumar Pandey And 2 Others

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home And Vigilance) Lko.And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, Har Nitin Bahadur Sinha

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Yadav, Dr Pooja Singh,

¶8

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶9

Heard Shri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate and Shri Har Nitin Bahadur Sinha, Advocate, who appeared for the revisionists and Dr. Pooja Singh, Advocate, and Shri Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party no.2 and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶10

By means of the present revision, the revisionists namely Shravan Kumar Pandey (Devar/brother-in-law of the deceased), Dr. Raj Kishore Tiwari (Nandoi/brother-in law of the deceased) and Dr. Mamta Pandey (Nanad/sister-in law of the deceased) have impeached the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by Session Court, Lucknow (in short "trial Court") in Session Trial No. 3258 of 2023 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar Pandey & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No.591 of 2021, under Sections 302, 34, 498-A, 504, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶11

Page No. 2 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶12

Vide impugned order dated 14.07.2025, the trial Court has rejected the application for discharge preferred by the revisionists.

¶13

Brief facts of the case, which born out from record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, are as under :-

¶14

(i) An FIR No. No.591 of 2021, Police StatiionGomti Nagar, District - Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow) was lodged by opposite party no.2 making allegations therein against husband, Sasur/father-in-law, Saas/mother-in-law, Devar/brother-in-law, Nanad/sister-inlaw and husband of sister-in-law namely Avinash Pandey, Krishna Kumar Pandey, Amita Pandey, Shravan Pandey, Mamta, respectively. This FIR was lodged without indicating name of the husband of Mamta (Nanad).

¶15

(ii) Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR including allegations related to demand of dowry and cruelty committed by the accused on account of nonfulfillment of the same, the FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 34, 498-A, 504 IPC.

¶16

(iii) It would be apt to indicate that prior to lodging of FIR No. 591, detailed above, opposite party no. 02 on 26.08.2021 preferred an application before in charge of Police Statiion- Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow East

¶17

Page No. 3 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶18

(Commissionerate), which is on record as Annexure No. R-14 (page 115 of the application) and the same is extracted herein-under :-

¶19

" श्रीमानथानाध्यक्ष गोमतीनगर लखनऊ

¶20

महोदय,

¶21

सवि�नयविन�ेदनहैवि�आजविदनां� 26/8/2021 �ोप्रातः�ाल 6.30 से 7.00 बजे�ेलगभगमेरीबेटी�ेससुरसेसूचनाप्राप्तहुयीवि�उस�ी पुत्रीअंवि�तापाण्डेय�ीमृत्युहोगयीहै, जबप्राथ. उस�ीससुराल 6/97 वि�पुलखण्डगोमतीनगरलखनऊपहुँचातोअपनीपुत्री�ोमृतअ�स्था मेंपायाउस�ेगलेपरशरीरपरचोट�ेविनशानथे�हमृतअ�स्थामें जमीनपरपड़ीथीउस�ीमृत्युसंविदग्धपरिरस्थिस्थतितयोंमेंहुयीप्रतीतहोतीहै हमलोगों�ारो-रो�रबुराहालहैतथाहमारेपरिरजन�रिरश्तेदारदूरदराज सेआरहेथेमैंबहुतपरेशानहूँमेरीबेटी�ीलाशघरपरपड़ीहैऔर मेरीमनोस्थिस्थतइससमयसामान्यनहींहै, समस्तघटनाक्रम�ीगहराईसे छान�ीन�रमेंआप�ोअलगसेप्राथDनापत्रदूँगा।

लखनऊ

विदनां� 26/8/2021

Sd.

प्राथ. रामसे��विF�ेदी पुत्रविबन्देश्वरप्रसादविF�ेदी विन�ासी M.M.I.G. 65 एल०डी०ए०रामनगर�ालोनीऐशबाग लखनऊ"

¶26

(iv) After the aforesaid FIR No. 591, detailed above, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") proceeded in the matter as also the body was sent for post-mortem which was carried from 03:30 pm to 04:10 pm on 26.08.2021. Post-mortem report, which is on record as Annexure No. R-13, indicates

¶27

Page No. 4 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶28

that the deceased sustained ten injuries and the cause of death in the same indicated is 'Asphyxia' due to ante-mortem hanging.

¶29

(v) During investigation, the husband, father-inlaw and mother-in-law were apprehended and sent to jail.

¶30

(vi) The revisionists, who were not apprehended, approached this Court by means of CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19582 of 2021 (Dr. Mamta Pandey And Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And Ors.) . On 06.09.2021, this Court protected the interests of the revisionists. Subsequently, this Court dismissed the petition on merits vide order dated 01.09.2022.

¶31

(vii) The copy of order dated 01.09.2022 has not been placed on record though ought to be. During the course of the hearing, Dr. Pooja Singh, Advocate, placed the copy of order dated 01.09.2022 before this Court, which is taken on record.

¶32

(viii) The order of Division Bench of this Court dated 01.09.2022 indicates that the Division Bench took note of pronouncements on the issues raised and pleas(s)/ ground(s) taken by the revisionists to impeach the FIR, (basis of pending criminal proceedings)

¶33

Page No. 5 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶34

including the plea/ground based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and others , reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and in this regard the Division Bench of this Court observed as under :-

¶35

"Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned F.I.R. is a second F.I.R. and the same be quashed as has been prayed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Thus, the case law T.T.Antony [supra] cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶36

(ix) The order of Division Bench of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8687 of 2022 (Dr. Mamta Pandey And Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. and Ors.) . The Hon'ble Apex Court on 19.09.2022 protected the interests of the revisionists and subsequently the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order passed on 17.07.2023 finally disposed of SLP preferred by the revisionists. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, being relevant, is extracted herein-under :-

¶37

"Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the respondent-State, at this stage we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶38

However, taking note of the earlier proceedings before this Court and the interim protection that had been granted to the petitioners we make it clear that the petitioners would appear before the trial court to receive the charge sheet. Thereafter it is for the trial court to regulate the

¶39

Page No. 6 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶40

proceedings and consider as to whether the petitioners should be exempted from appearance if sought for and require their presence only when it becomes necessary for the trial court to do so.

¶41

In terms of the above, the interim protection granted earlier shall continue and is protected against arrest.

¶42

The special leave petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of."

¶43

(x) A conjoint reading of order of Division Bench of this Court dated 01.09.2022 and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 17.07.2023 indicates that findings of the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.09.2022, related to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) , has been affirmed.

¶44

(xi) It also appears from the order dated 17.07.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in terms of order of same, the revisionists were under obligation to receive the charge-sheet and thereafter, it is for the trial Court to regulate the proceedings and consider as to whether the petitioners should be exempted from appearance if sought for and require their presence only when it becomes necessary for the trial Court to do so.

¶45

(xii) After the aforesaid order the revisionists filed an application dated 05.09.2024 seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and in the

¶46

Page No. 7 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶47

said application all the grounds which were taken in the writ petition were taken by the revisionists including the grounds based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) .

¶48

(xiii) At the cost of repetition, at this stage, it would be apt to indicate that Division Bench in the order dated 01.09.2022 has recorded specific finding and according to the same in the case of the revisionists/petitioners the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) would not apply and this finding has not been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court as is evident from the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.07.2023.

¶49

(xiv) Before the trial Court objections were also filed.

¶50

(xv) The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 14.07.2025, rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionists. A perusal of order indicates that the trial Court while rejecting the application seeking discharge took note of allegations levelled against the revisionists as also the evidence placed on record by the I.O. including the statement of the child witness i.e. minor daughter born out of wedlock the co-accused Avinash Pandey and the deceased.

¶51

Page No. 8 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶52

(xvi) Relevant portion of the order impugned dated 14.07.2025 reads as under :-

¶53

" �ादीमु�दमारामसे��विF�ेदीए�ंसाक्षीगण-अचDनाविF�ेदी (मृत�ा�ीमाँ) �हर्षD विF�ेदी (मृत�ा�ाभाई) नेअपनेबयानअन्तगDतधारा 161 दं०प्र०सं०मेंप्रथमसूचनारिरपोटD मेंअंवि�ततथ्यों�ासमथDनवि�याहै तथासुविनयोजिजतआपरातिध�र्षड्यन्त्र�ेतहतदहेज�ीमांग�ोले�र मृत�ा�ोप्रताविड़त�रने�उस�ेसाथमार-पीट�रउस�ीहत्या�रने �ा�थनवि�याहै।�ादीमु�दमानेअपनेमजीदबयानमेंयह�थन वि�याहैवि�विदनां� 14.08.2021 �ोजबउस�ेदामादए�ंउस�ेसमधी नेफोनपरउस�ेसाथअभद्रता�रतेहुएघरपरआने�ो�हा, तो�ह उन�ेघरगया, तोगेटपरहीसमधी�ृष्ण�ुमारपाण्डेय, उस�ाछोटा बेटाश्र�णपाण्डेय, ममतापाण्डेय, अविमतापाण्डेयए�ंअवि�नाशमौजूद विमलेए�ंममतापाण्डेयए�ंश्र�णपाण्डेयनेजोरदेतेहुए�ृष्ण�ुमार पाण्डेयऔरअविमतासे�हायहरोज-रोज�ाड्रामाबहुतहोगया, अब इससमस्या�ास्थायीसमाधानविन�ालहीडालो, जोहोगादेखलिलया जायेगा।जिजसपर�ृष्ण�ुमारपाण्डेयने�हावि�ठी�है, अबबहुतहुआ तथा�ादी�ो�हाँसेजाने�ेलिलये�हाए�ंयह�हावि��हअपने परिर�ार�अपनेदामादराजवि�शोरतित�ारी�ेसाथबैठ�रइससमस्या�ा समाधानविन�ालेगा।घटना�ीचक्षुदश. साक्षीगौरीपाण्डेय (मृत�ा�ी पुत्री) नेवि��ेच��ोयहबयानविदयाहैवि� "मरीबुआरक्षाबे न्धन�े पहले - मरे े घरआगयीथीऔरहमलोगों�े साथरहतीथी।बीच बीचमंफूफाे भीआत-े जाते थ।मे रे े पापाशराबरोजपीते थ, े मरे े मम्मापापा�ाझगड़ा होताथा।मरे े बाबा, दादी, बुआ, फूफातथाचाचाभीमरीमे म्मीसे - लड़ाई झगड़ा�रते थे औरमारते थ।मे रीमे म्माबहुतरोया�रतीथी। विदना�ं 25.08.2021 �ोमरीमे म्मामराहोम��े D �रा�े मुझे सुलाने हीजा रहीथी, तभीमरे े पापाशराबपी�रआये और�मरे मंमे रीमे म्मा�ो मारते हुएखींच�रबाहरले गय।तभीमे रे े बाबा, दादी, बुआ, फूफाआ गय।ये े सभीलोगपापा�े साथमरीमे म्मा�ोमारने लग।पापामे रीमे म्मा �े गले मंतारसे े खींचरहे थे तथाबुआ, फूफामरीमे म्मा�ाहाथप�ड़े थ, े बाबामरीमे म्मा�े परप�ड़ै े हुएथ, े दादीमम्मा�े बालखींचरहीथी - और�हरहीथीवि�आजइस�ोमारहीडालो।मरीमे म्माबचाओ बचाओतिचल्लारहीथी, तोमंअपनीमै म्मा�ोबचाने �े लिलएमम्मासे तिचप�गयी।तभीमरे े पापाने मुझे मरीमे म्मीसे छुड़ा�रडाट�रअं न्दर �मरे मंबे न्द�रविदया।मंरोतै -े रोते सोगयी, सुबहमंनै े दखावि�मे रीे मम्माफशD परपड़ीथी, तबमंनै े मम्मा�ोविहलाया, औरमम्मामम्मा तिचल्लायी, लवि�नमे म्माउठनहींरहीथी, तभीपापामुझे ऊपरउठाले गय।दादीने े बुआममतासे �हावि�तुमसभीलोगपुलिलस�े आने �े " पहले यहाँ से भागजाओ।

¶54

Page No. 9 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶55

......XXXXXXXX.....

¶56

उभयपक्षोंFाराप्रस्तुतत�[ परवि�चार�रने�ेउपरान्तप्र�रण�े तथ्यों, परिरस्थिस्थतितयोंए�ंपक्ष�ारोंFाराउद्धृतवि�तिधव्य�स्थाओं�ासम्मान �रतेहुए, इसन्यायालय�ेसुवि�चारिरतअभिभमतमेंअभिभयुक्तगणFारा अपराधसेउन्मोतिचतवि�येजानेहेतुजोआधारप्र�टवि�येगयेहैं, �ेइस स्तरपरसुसंगतए�ंपयाDप्तनहींहैं।अभिभयुक्तगण�ेवि�रूद्धपत्रा�लीपर प्रथमदृष्ट्याऐसीसाक्ष्यउपलब्धहै, जोअखस्थिण्डतरहनेपरअभिभयुक्तगण �ीदोर्ष-जिसतिद्ध�ाआधारहोस�तीहै।अभिभयुक्तगणFाराउठायेगयेविबन्दु प्र�रण�ेवि�चारण�ेस्तरपरवि�चारणीयहैं।प्रस्तुतप्र�रणमेंप्रथम दृष्ट्याअभिभयुक्तगण�ेवि�रुद्धधारा 34, 302, 498-ए, 504, 201, 120बीभा०दं०सं०�ेअधीनआरोपवि�रतिचतवि�येजानेहेतुआधारपयाDप्तहै तथाप्र�रणमें�ोईप्रविक्रयात्म�याक्षेत्रातिध�ारिरतासम्बन्धीत्रुविटपरिरलतिक्षत नहींहोतीहै।तदै�, अभिभयुक्तगणFाराप्रस्तुतउन्मोचनआ�ेदनपत्रविनरस्त होनेयोग्यहैं।

¶57

आदेश

¶58

आ�ेद�/अभिभयुक्तश्र�ण�ुमारपाण्डेय�ीओरसेप्रस्तुतउन्मोचनप्राथDना पत्रबी-11 ए�ंअभिभयुक्तगणडा०राजवि�शोरतित�ारी�डा०ममतापाण्डेय (तित�ारी) �ीओरप्रस्तुतउन्मोचनप्राथDनापत्रबी-12 विनरस्तवि�येजातेहैं। तदनुसार, �मशःआपलिf बी-13 �बी-14 विनस्तारिरत�ीजातीहै।

¶59

पत्रा�ली�ास्तेवि�रतिचतवि�येजानेआरोपविदनां� 22.07.2025 �ोपेश हो।अभिभयुक्तगणविनयतविदनां��ोन्यायालय�ेसमक्षव्यविक्तगतरूपसे उपस्थिस्थतहों।"

¶60

In the aforesaid background of the case the instant revision has been filed impeaching the order dated 14.07.2025.

¶61

Impeaching the order dated 14.07.2025, Shri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the revisionists who appeared alongwith Shri Har Nitin Bahadur Sinha, Advocate, for the purposes of causing interference by this Court made following submissions:-

¶62

(A) The revisionist no.1, at the time of incident, was at Jaipur with his in-laws and the revisionist no.2

¶63

Page No. 10 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶64

was discharging his duties at CHC, Lalganj, Raebareli and revisionist no.3 was present in her House No.2/146 Vastu Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. As such the revisionists ought to have been discharged by the trial Court. Thus, the first ground seeking discharge is based on plea of 'Alibi'.

¶65

(B) Relying upon the statement of the child witness recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. the trial Court erred in law.

¶66

(C) Based upon judgment passed in the case of T.T.Antony (Supra), it is stated that the trial Court ought to have discharged the revisionists in the case which is based upon second FIR.

¶67

(D) Based upon the paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.07.2025 (I.A. Nil of 2025), it is stated that the trial Court committed error in considering the photocopies of the documents on record certified by the Court clerk and also submitted that the trial Court erred in framing charges under Sections 304, 302, 498A, 504, 120B and 201 IPC so far as it relates to revisionist no.1 as this revisionist was charge-sheeted for the offense under Sections 302, 498A and 120B IPC and also submitted that the impugned order ought to have been passed in Session Trial No. 3258/2023 and in the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 the number of trial has

¶68

Page No. 11 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶69

been indicated as Session Trial No.3248/2023 and it indicates that the trial Court has not applied its mind. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 3 of the aforesaid affidavit is extracted herein-below :-

¶70

"3. That the impugned order suffered of certain illegalities apparent on the face of said order which projects the circumstances under which such orders are passed viz.

¶71

i. The Sessions Trial No. 3258/2023 which is the identification number of the case has been mentioned as Session Trial No. 3248/2023 State of Up vs Shravan Pandey and Others. The certified copy was applied for the order dated 14.07.2025 in ST No. 3258/2023 against which the impugned order has been issued with wrong details and ST No. 3248/2023.

¶72

ii. Just beneath the said title, the sections of the I.P.C. find mention under which the prosecution has initiated the proceedings against the Revisionists. Amongst the said sections, Section 201 has been purposely not written.

¶73

iii. All the three Revisionists have been charged in terms of the impugned order under Sections 34, 302, 498A, 504, 120B and 201 I.P.C., whereas the chargesheet filed against the Revisionist No. 1 is under Sections 302, 498A and 120B I.P.C.

¶74

iv. The proceedings of the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition 19582/2021 filed and decided by this Hon'ble Court and proceedings of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 8687 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court decided on 17.07.2023 have been totally ignored and omitted, though the orders passed in those cases are available on record and necessary protections in light thereof was sought during arguments.

¶75

v. The issue relating to lack of jurisdiction to try the case in view of unattested and unauthenticated papers

¶76

Page No. 12 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶77

submitted by the prosecution which were argued and previous orders passed in that regard were referred to."

¶78

Per contra, Dr. Pooja Singh, Advocate submitted that no interference of this Court in the matter is required as the trial Court rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionists after considering the material available before it and the order rejecting the prayer to discharge the revisionists is a reasoned and speaking order.

¶79

Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

¶80

The submission 6(A) based upon the plea of 'Alibi' has no force. It is for the following reasons:

¶81

(i) The Latin word 'Alibi' means 'elsewhere'. Plea of 'Alibi' is a rule of recognized in Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The plea of Alibi disputes the case of prosecution. Thus plea of 'Alibi' is question of fact. It is settled law that when an accused raises plea of 'Alibi', the burden is on accused to prove the same. A plea of 'Alibi' is a question of fact which is required to be proved by the accused at the stage of trial to show that he/ she was elsewhere and was falsely implicated and the accused is also required to prove the same by adducing appropriate evidence. The plea of 'Alibi' is the plea of defence and the same can be proved/established by the defence by placing appropriate evidence at appropriate stage of trial and Strict proof is required for

¶82

Page No. 13 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶83

establishing the plea of 'Alibi'. (See: Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 379; State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple (1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 283]; Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378 and Shaikh Sattar v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 8 SCC 430].

¶84

(ii) In view of aforesaid, plea of 'Alibi' can be considered by the trial Court but not at the stage of discharge. Therefore, the ground to cause interference in the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 on the basis of plea of 'Alibi' has no force.

¶85

The submission 6(B) has also no force. It is for the reason that the statement/testimony of child cannot be considered, however, subject to the observations made in this regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390 and moreover, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the child witness is a tutored witness whose statement recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. is against the revisionists.

¶86

The submission 6(C) seeking discharge on the basis of judgment passed in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) has also no force. It is for the following reasons:-

¶87

Page No. 14 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶88

(i) The Division Bench of this Court in order dated 01.09.2022, in this regard, has already observed against the revisionists. The relevant portion of order dated 01.09.2022 reads as under.

¶89

"After having examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the said aspect and the material brought on record, the Court finds that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appears to have substance as is evident from the application dated 26.08.2021 submitted by the private respondent at Police Station Gomtinagar, Lucknow. The private respondent/Ram Sewak Dwivedi who is the father of the deceased has given information about the death of his daughter which has taken place on 26.08.2021 and the same was registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar in G.D. No. 039 on 26.08.2021 at 14.26 hours and the complainant/private respondent lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners and thereafter on 27.08.2021 against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned F.I.R. is a second F.I.R. and the same be quashed as has been prayed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Thus, the case law T.T.Antony [supra] cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶90

(ii) The order dated 01.09.2022 of the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.07.2023.

¶91

The submission 6(D), based upon averments made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit, has also no force. It is for the following reasons:-

¶92

Page No. 15 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶93

(i) On account of fact that the revisionists were not apprehended, the trial of revisionists and the accused, who were apprehended, was separated and therefore two cases were registered. One Session Trial No. 3248 of 2023 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar Pandey & Ors.) and another Session Trial No. 3258/2023 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar Pandey & Ors.).

¶94

(ii) In Session Trial No. 3258/2023, the photocopies of the original documents were placed on record, but these photocopies were not certified as would appear from the order dated 13.01.2023 of trial Court and in terms of the same the photocopies of the documentary evidence were certified by the concerned clerk of the Court. The noting of the concerned Clerk is extracted herein-under :-

¶95

" श्रीमानजी, आदेशविदनां� 13/01/2025 �ेअनुपालनमेंछायाप्रतितप्रपत्रों �ामूलसेविमलान�ाप्रमाभिणतवि�यागया। अपठनीयहस्ताक्षर लिलविप�"

¶96

(iii) To establish that the photocopies of the originals, which were in file of Session Trial No. 3248 of 2023, should be verified by Police Officer the counsel for the revisionists has not placed before this Court the law in this regard.

¶97

Page No. 16 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶98

(iv) It appears from Annexure No. R-26, the trial Court has passed all the orders in Session Trial No. 3258/2023 and this is the Session Trial for the revisionists and the order impugned indicates Session Trial No. 3248/2023, which appears to be typographical error for which trial Court is cautioned. However, on this ground, to the view of this Court, no interference is required.

¶99

(v) On the aspect of framing of charge for the offense under Section 201 IPC, this Court asked learned counsel for the revisionists to place before this Court the copy of charge-sheet so as to come to conclusion as to whether the charge-sheet with regard to revisionist no. 1 was filed for offense under Sections 302, 498-A and 120B IPC and in response, he has stated that the same has not been filed though ought to be.

¶100

(vi) It is settled principle of law that in the process of framing of charges (a) the trial Court is not strictly bound by the contents of charge-sheet and can form its own opinion based on the evidence/material available on record, (b) the trial Court must evaluate the evidence on record coming to the conclusion that prima facie case against the accused is made out, (c) the Court is not required to delve into probative value of the evidence at the stage of framing charges, (d) the Court is not limited

¶101

Page No. 17 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶102

to the specific charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, (e) the Court should not blindly accept the prosecution's case, (f) the Court should independently apply/assess the evidence/material on record, (g) if evidence/material on record, taken at face value, discloses all the ingredients of the alleged offense the Court can frame charge and (h) the Court is not required to pass detailed order.

¶103

(vii) On the issue of framing charges, it could be useful to refer some pronouncements.

¶104

(viii) In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 : 1978 SCC OnLine SC 312 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-

¶105

Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

¶106

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

¶107

(2) Where thematerials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

¶108

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave

¶109

Page No. 18 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶110

suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

¶111

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

¶112

(ix) In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 310 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 50 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-

¶113

"12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the

¶114

Page No. 19 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶115

prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (see Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] ).

¶116

We have perused the records and we agree with the above views expressed by the High Court. We find that in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused and statements of witnesses were recorded by the police after ten months of the occurrence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact the prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no prima facie case was made against the appellant."

¶117

(x) In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1045 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-

¶118

"Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC

¶119

On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

¶120

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

¶121

(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been

¶122

Page No. 20 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025

¶123

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶124

properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

¶125

(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

¶126

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

¶127

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

¶128

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

¶129

(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

¶130

Page No. 21 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶131

(xi) In State v. Anup Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 816 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 866 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-

¶132

"30. .....The legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him the court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the court, a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. The court is required to consider the “record of the case” and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exist, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case."

¶133

Page No. 22 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶134

(xii) In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Pirthi Chand, reported in AIR 1996 SC 977, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-

¶135

"great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions, which are considered mandatory, and its effect of non-compliance. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the chargesheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether Court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out no further act could be done except to quash the charge sheet. It is observed "when the remedy under Section 482 is available, the High Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 since efficacious remedy under Section 482 of the Code is available. When the Court exercises its inherent power under Section 482 the prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of Justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When Investigating Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise the inherent power to quash the charge-sheet."

¶136

Page No. 23 of 23 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 825 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

¶137

(xiii) In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that in framing the charge for offense under Section 201 IPC against the revisionist no.1, the trial Court has not committed any error.

¶138

Having observed above as also taking note of the observations made by this Court, this Court finds no force in the instant revision and therefore, it is liable to dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed . Costs made easy.

¶139

Order Date :- 08^th August, 2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶140

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home and Vigilance) Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Shravan Kumar Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home and Vigilance) Lko.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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shambhoo Sharan Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile Delinquent a (Minor) Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Alias Rajnu Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satish Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Prem Narain Dubey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another