Viri Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2746 of 2026

Viri Singh And 4 Others

Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Binod Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 86

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), First/Additional Session Judge, Etah in Session Cas No.897 of 2023 (State vs. Shahbaz Khan @ Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime NO.370 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 354, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case an application for discharge was moved before the learned trial court which was dismissed by order dated 09.02.2026 and formal charge was framed on the same day. Further submitted that a case was got registered against the informant by the revisionists that was the reason present F.I.R. was lodged with false allegation in counter-blast. The revisionists filed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.26192 of 2023 which was decided by this Court on 11.08.2023 and no remedy was granted in their favour. During the course of investigation, the statements of victim u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the I.O. and

¶9

CRLR No. 2746 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

the learned Magistrate in which she made allegations but there are material discrepancies which made her statements unreliable. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the application for discharge, therefore, the learned trial court has committed error in passing the order in question which is liable to be set aside and application for discharge to be allowed while allowing this revision.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case all these facts have already been raised before this Court while arguing the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.26192 of 2023 in which this Court has found that as per the contents of F.I.R. as well as statements of the victim, prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants/revisionists that was the reason the remedy was refused and application was dismissed by order dated 11.08.2023. At this stage of framing of charge, learned trial court is to consider the material collected during the course of investigation to find out prima faice case and not to make scrutiny of the material as during the course of trial. He also contends that once formal charge is being framed and it can not be deleted. Learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the order in question.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A., the contents of F.I.R., the statements of the victim as recorded u/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. before the I.O. and learned Magistrate, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 09.02.2026 and also the formal charge being framed by the learned trial court, it transpires that after perusing the material collected during the course of investigation the learned trial court has passed the order in question and also framed the charge for molestation and under POCSO Act against the revisionists Shahbaz Khan @ Sonu & Pravesh Kumar and against others under Section 147, 323/34, 504 I.P.C. after considering the entire statement of the victim. While deciding the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the same revisionists this Court has considered the material elaborately and found out that, prima facie, cognizable offence is made out against the revisionists that was

¶14

CRLR No. 2746 of 2026

¶15

3

¶16

the reason remedy was refused. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is expected to make scrutiny of the material only with a view to find out the prima facie case and scrutiny is not to be made as during the course of trial. After framing of formal charge it cannot be deleted but it may either result in conviction or acquittal though the learned trial court has power u/s 216 Cr.P.C./239 B.N.S.S. either to add or alter the charge. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶18

May 5, 2026 Ashok Gupta

¶19

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Viri Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viri Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustakeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt Pooja Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tilakram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haneef and Others Vs State of U.P.