Harcharan Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.12.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khair, District Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 230 of 2015 (Kalicharan Vs. Sanjay and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has submitted that the present complaint is a retaliation and counter-blast to the earlier NCR lodged by revisionist no.1. There is malicious prosecution against the revisionists. There were no injury. It is completely abuse of process of law. There is neither any material evidence nor any supporting evidence. There are no independent witness. The revisionists have filed a case in the year 2011 and in that retaliation and counter-blast to safeguard the applicant of that case and to create undue pressure on the revisionists, the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhushree Datta Vs. The State of Karnataka and another; 2025 INSC 105 , in which it is held that "Notwithstanding this, and as asserted by the appellants, there are certain facts that strongly suggest that the criminal proceedings were initiated by

¶12

CRLR No. 973 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

the complainant against the appellants with mala fide intentions, specifically to wreak vengeance, cause harm, or coerce a settlement. The presence of the second accused cannot by any stretch of imagination be visualized, if one were to barely read the complaint-initial and subsequent- and treat the contents as true; yet, the complainant alleged acts against him which, according to her, amounted to criminal offence. We are reminded of the maxim res ipsa loquitur and leave the discussion at that."

¶15

The basis of this law was in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, whereas the subject matter before this Court in this case is criminal revision. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C and the scope of criminal revision are quite different, whereas the scope of criminal revision is very limited. The criminal revision court is mainly to see illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied on Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2025 INSC 8 . In paragraph no.6 it is held that it is worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions of this Court in regard to the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings before considering the rival contentions with reference to the allegations made in the subject FIR, as extracted above. It is true that normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This position was made clear by this Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others; AIR 1992 SC 604 . Whereas in the present subject matter, the revisionists had been summoned in a complaint case, where statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C of witness Malti Devi as PW-1 and PW-2 complainant Kali Charan/opposite party no.2 as a witness were recorded prior to summoning and after perusing the evidences, the revisionists were summoned.

¶17

The statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C.is already recorded before the learned trial court of PW-1 Kali Charan/complainant and thereafter, the

¶18

CRLR No. 973 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

statement of PW-1, Kali Charan has duly been cross-examined and the statement of PW-2, Prashant is already recorded and cross-examined. Both witnesses have supported the prosecution story.

¶21

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists that it is a counter-blast case and a malicious prosecution, whereas, the FIR of 2011 which was filed by the revisionist are of the incident relating to 2011. Whereas, the present complaint that has been filed by the complainant is of the year 2015 and after following due process of law, the summons have been issued against the revisionists. The revisionists have already filed a petition U/s 482 No. 23201 of 2017 (Harcharan Lal Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court, which is filed as Annexure-11 to this revision. The said petition was filed for quashing of proceedings of Complaint No. 230 of 2015 which is subject matter of this criminal revision also. The prayer for quashing the proceedings was declined by this Court in the petition aforesaid vide order dated 1.9.2025 and opportunity has been provided to the revisionist/applicants to file an application for discharge. Said application of discharge has now been decided by a well reasoned order passed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 20.12.2025.

¶22

The mini trial could not be possible at that stage. There is consistency of evidences recorded before the learned trial court and had supported the prosecution version. The final finding could be given by the trial court at the final stage of the trial. It is the prosecution who has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not the liability of the revisionists/accused person.

¶23

After consideration of the entire facts, circumstances and provisions of law, this Court is of the view that there is neither illegality nor irregularity nor jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.12.2025. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed .

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

February 10, 2026

¶26

sfa/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harcharan Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harcharan Sharma and 2 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

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zakir vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Balbir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another