Dismissed¶16

Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2026CRLR/2749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abdul Hakeem alias Munna v. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 2749 of 2025 (CRLR No. 2749 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Coram: Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J., decided May 7, 2026. Challenge to rejection of discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.205 of 2025; charge already framed, discharge question infructuous; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the charge has already been framed in the matter, the Court finds merit in the learned A.G.A.'s submission that the question of discharge has become infructuous. ¶15

Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2749 of 2025

¶3

Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Mahesh Kumar Dubey G.A., Munna Babu

¶6

Court No. - 45

¶7

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Munna Babu, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Revisionist Abdul Hakeem alias Munna has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Trial No.205 of 2025, State v. Abdul Hakeem alias Munna, whereby the Trial Court rejected the revisionist's application for discharged moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Trial Court passed the impugned order without applying the judicial mind and considering the facts and evidence available on record. It is thus contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court invoking revisional jurisdiction.

¶11

Per contra , the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the criminal revision and apprised the Court that the charge in the case has already been framed. Therefore, the question of discharge has now become infructuous.

¶12

CRLR No. 2749 of 2025

¶13

¶14

When confronted with above, learned counsel for the revisionist could not dislodge the factual and legal submission of the learned A.G.A.

¶15

Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and the fact that the charge has already been framed in the matter, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned A.G.A. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is dismissed .

¶17

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)

¶18

May 7, 2026 Brijesh Maurya

¶19

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

Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakeem Alias Munna 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

Similar cases

Sukhdev Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Bahadur Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Guddu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Priti and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another