Shivgopal vs State of U.P. and Another

"1. Issue an order or direction to set-aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed by Session Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 (Shivgopal Versus State of U.P.) and order dated 16.07.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Criminal Case No 800653 of 2003 as well as Case Crime No. 175 of 2002, Under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Hamirpur (State Versus Rambalak and others).

¶14

2. Issue an order or direction discharge the petitioner in Criminal Case No.800653 of 2003 as well as Case Crime No. 175 of 2002, Under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, DistrictHamirpur (State Versus Rambalak and others).

¶15

3. Issue any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶16

A227 No. 116 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 06.07.2002 as Case Crime Number 175/2002 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur against the petitioner and six other co-accused. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 22.02.2003 was filed against all the seven accused, including the applicant, on which the CJM, Hamirpur vide order dated 11.03.2003 took cognizance and summoned them for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. An application for discharge dated 31.01.2025 was filed by the petitioner claiming discharge, the same stood rejected vide order dated 16.07.2025. A revision against the same was preferred by the petitioner, which stood rejected vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. This present petition for writ has, thus, been filed before this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as a Lekhpal and has retired from the post of Lekhpal and is now aged about 71 years. Paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition has been placed before this Court. It is further submitted that the present incident has taken place at unknown date and time and thus the same is vague. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his report to the Court after viewing the family register issued by the witnesses, the village head, the Will writer, the village witnesses and the public servants, and thus did not do any work independently and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that no offence, whatsoever, is made against the petitioner. It is submitted that, as such, the present petition for writ be allowed and the orders impugned be set aside and the petitioner be ordered to be discharged in the present matter.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and the submissions of the petitioner and submitted that the submissions are as a matters of fact relating to the factual aspects of the matter and thus they cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. It is submitted that at this stage only the prima facie offence has to be seen and this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial and give any finding with regards to the factual aspects of the matter. It is submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and be dismissed.

¶21

A227 No. 116 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner was posted as a Lekhpal. The First Information Report was lodged against him and six other persons, on which, after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against all the seven accused, including the petitioner. Cognizance was taken on the same and they were summoned. The petitioner then moved an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. dated 31.05.2025. The same was dismissed by the trial court concerned vide order dated 06.07.2025. A revision against the same was preferred, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.

¶24

The challenge to the orders impugned and the ground for discharge is being argued and pleaded is that the applicant acted in discharge of his government duty on the basis of records and gave his report to the said in the matter, which has not been considered by the courts and his application for discharge has been rejected, against which a revision has also been rejected.

¶25

The law with regards to discharge/framing of charge is trite. Gainful reference is made to the following judgments of the Apex Court:-

¶26

i. Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI: (2010) 9 SCC 368,

¶27

ii) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander: (2012) 9 SCC 460,

¶28

iii) Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency: (2019) 7 SCC 148,

¶29

iv) Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2019 SCC On Line SC 609,

¶30

v) Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam: (2020) 2 SCC 217,

¶31

vi) M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. CBI: (2020) 2 SCC 768,

¶32

vii) State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: 2021 SCC On Line SC 314,

¶33

viii) State of Orissa vs. Pratima Mohanty: 2021 SCC On Line SC 1222,

¶34

ix) State through Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. R.Soundirarasu: 2022 SCC On Line SC 1150,

¶35

A227 No. 116 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

x) Mahendra Prasad Tiwari vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari: 2022 SCC On Line SC 1057,

¶38

xi) Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar: (2022) 9 SCC 577."

¶39

Thus, the law is settled that the principle of discharge is that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial, go into the factual aspects of the matter and for powers to exercise and powers for exercise should be used sparingly. The Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. At the stage of discharge, the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and evidence in detail as if conducting a mini-trial. The Court is merely required to take note of the material on record in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In the present matter, the FIR and the material collected during investigation shows allegations against the accused/petitioner. The same cannot be appreciated and looked into at this stage. No ground for interference is made out.

¶40

The present petition for writ is, thus, dismissed .

¶41

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶42

January 12, 2026 Kamarjahan

¶43

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivgopal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivgopal 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

Puneet Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Narinder Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Reena Sahu Dr. Santosh Kumar Sahu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt Sahiba Khatoon @ Samriddhi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Kumar vs State of U.P.

Imran Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and 2 Others