Revision dismissed. Court held it was not a discharge case and observed it was inappropriate to comment on offence nature without charge framing order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 827 of 2026
Pradeep Kashyap
| .....Rev | isionist(s) | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State Of U.P. And 2 Others | .... | .Opposite Party(s) |
| Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Chandra Ishan Deo |
Bhushan Giri |
Singh, |
| Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. |
||
| Court No.- 85 |
HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 01, District-Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 1179 of 2025 "State versus Pradeep Kashyap" arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2023 vide F.I.R. dated 18.04.2023 under Sections 307, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Devgaon, District-Azamgarh, whereby the discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected.
Heard Shri Kushagra Vaibhav Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ishan Deo Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per allegation, the revisionist ran over the victim with his Bolero Vehicle and caused three injuries, but no offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. would be made out. Learned counsel submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.04.2022 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at 02:36 p.m., which itself renders the prosecution case doubtful, but trial court has erroneously dismissed his application seeking discharge. He prays that the impugned order be set aside and the application seeking discharge is accepted.
Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering the submission, this Court finds that according to the prosecution case the injured had suffered three injuries and in the chargesheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. reliance is placed upon statement of
CRLRD No. 827 of 2026
2
injured as well as his medical records collected during investigation. Even otherwise the alleged offences are against human body and in the absence of order framing charges, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make any observation in respect to nature of offence committed by the accusedpetitioner. In any case, it is not a case of discharge at all, therefore no ground is made for interference of the impugned order.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the revision petition stands dismissed.
April 20, 2026 SY
(Manoj Bajaj,J.)
Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the rejection of discharge application deserves interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kashyap
State Of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
