Dismissed¶22

Sunil Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2026CRLRD/951/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; CRLRD No. 951 of 2026; Sunil Shukla & others v. State of U.P. & another; decided 12.05.2026; criminal revision against rejection of discharge application; Sessions Case No.696 of 2024; Case Crime No.10 of 2021; Sections 147, 323, 336, 427, 307 IPC; P.S. Nazirabad, Kanpur Nagar; delay condonation u/s 5 Limitation Act (23 days); prima facie case at charge-framing stage; charge on grave suspicion; enmity double-edged weapon; injuries on head and chest, no fracture in CT scan; revision dismissed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 23 days in filing the revision condoned (delay condonation application allowed); the criminal revision itself dismissed at the admission stage, upholding the order rejecting the discharge application. ¶22

Sunil Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 23 days in filing the criminal revision should be condoned. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The cause shown for the 23-day delay in filing the revision is sufficient; the delay is condoned and the application u/s 5 Limitation Act is allowed.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of framing of charge the trial court is expected only to scrutinise the material to find a prima facie case; no such appreciation of material as at trial for final judgment is required.

¶21

Key takeaways

Even on grave suspicion a charge can be framed.ratio¶21
Enmity is a double-edged weapon usable both for false implication and for committing an offence; at the stage of discharge/framing of charge no conclusion can be drawn about the effect of enmity between the parties.ratio¶21
The order dated 06.01.2026 contains no illegality or impropriety; the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRLRD No. 951 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) against order dated 06.01.2026 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the discharge application in Sessions Case No.696 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 336, 427, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar. Held: (i) delay of 23 days condoned; application u/s 5 Limitation Act allowed; (ii) at the stage of framing of charge the court need only scrutinise the material for a prima facie case, without the appreciation expected at trial, and a charge may be framed even on grave suspicion; (iii) enmity is a double-edged weapon and no conclusion on false implication can be drawn at the discharge/charge stage; (iv) no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Criminal revision dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 951 of 2026

¶3

Sunil Shukla And 3 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ved Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 86

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶10

In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of delay.

¶12

The cause shown for delay in filing this revision after delay of 23 days seems to be sufficient, therefore, the delay in filing of this revision is condoned and the application u/s 5 Limitation Act is, hereby, allowed.

¶13

In Re: Criminal Revision

¶14

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

¶15

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Case No.696 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sunil Shukla & others) arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 427, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar, by which the application for discharge was rejected.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the dispute is related to a shop that is in possession of the opposite party Navin Bhatia. On account of that enmity present F.I.R. has been lodged with false allegatin of committing of marpit against the family members of the revisionists. Further submitted that there was allegation of theft but the money said to be stolen was found in the drawer that was the reason charge

¶17

CRLRD No. 951 of 2026

¶18

¶19

sheet was not filed u/s 380 I.P.C. which falsifies the whole allegation made in the F.I.R. Further submitted that the person who brought the injured to the doctor was Shashi Nagar whereas in the G.D. there is entry of some other Home Guard. There is contradiction in the statement of G.D. writer and other witnesses. The injuries are also simple in nature and no any fracture was found on the head and chest of the injured. The offence u/s 307 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out even though the learned trial court has not considered all these facts while passing the order in question in routine manner that cannot be said to be lawful but being erroneous it is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of F.I.R. and the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by learned trial court, it transpires that in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that with intent to kill the informant, the accused persons assaulted him with bricks and stones inflicting injuries on his person. During the course of medical examination injuries were found on the head and chest of the injured though in C.T. scan no fracture was found. 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 faice case and no such appreciation of material is required as is expected during the course of trial for final judgment. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. On the basis of enmity, it can also not be said that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the present case since enmity is double edged weapon which can be used for false implication and also for committing an offence. At the stage of discharge/framing of charge no conclusion can be drawn about the effect of enmity between the parties. In the order dated 06.01.2026, there appears no any illegality or impropriety but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

May 12, 2026 Ashok Gupta

¶24

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶25

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

Sunil Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghav vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Singhal Alias Anurag Singham vs State of Up and 7 Others

Smt. Priti Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arsh Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another