Arun Kumar Alias Mintu And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1608 of 2026
Arun Kumar Alias Mintu And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jagadeesh Prasad Chaurasiya,
Neeraj Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Although notice has been served upon opposite party no.2, but
none present on her behalf even in the revised call.
2. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the
revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated
15.09.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court-I,
Ghazipur as well as charge-sheet dated 11.06.2023 alongwith
cognizance order dated 26.06.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.1, Saidpur, Ghazipur in Session Trial No.188 of 2024 (Arun
Kumar @ Mintu and others Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime
No.138 of 2023 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Saidpur,
District Ghazipur. Court concerned has rejected the discharge
application 11-Ba of revisionist vide impugned order dated
15.09.2025.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists
that revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case.
There is no independent witness of the incident. Victim in her written
report / Tehrir has stated that she became ill on 18.04.2023 at about
10:00 P.M., however, she, in her statement recorded under sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has stated the date and time of incident to be

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
2
18.04.2023 at 11:00 A.M. Therefore, there is sharp contradiction in
the prosecution story as put forth by her in her written report / Tehrir
and statements recorded during course of investigation. It has been
further submitted that victim has stated that she was injected
medicine, as a result of which her body came in the state of debility
and taking advantage of this, she was raped. However, during the
course of investigation, statement of Dr. Santosh Kumar was
recorded by the Investigating Officer, who in his statement has clearly
stated that he is not aware about any medicine or injection which can
cause lifelessness while keeping a person in a state of
consciousness. It is next submitted that the revisionist was taking
training in the hospital run by Dr. Munna after completing his D.
Pharma. Dr. Munna and his wife Dr. Archana @ Gudia wanted to
solemnize marriage of victim with revisionist no.1, however,
revisionist no.1 refused to marry her for the reason that he was
already engaged. It was also submitted that in this matter, the first
information report was lodged belatedly after a period of 29 days from
the date of alleged incident. Lastly, it has been argued that the
learned trial Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspects while
deciding the discharge application of the revisionists and has passed
the impugned order in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the present
criminal revision may be allowed and the impugned order dated
15.09.2025 and cognizance taking order dated 26.06.2023 be set-
aside.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that application 11-Ba of the
revisionists has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court by a
detailed and reasoned order dated 15.09.2025. The impugned order
as well as cognizance taking order dated 26.06.2023 do not suffer
from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, therefore, the present
criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Praban Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal 1958 SCC
OnLine SC 79 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed the nature of revisional powers of a High Court and held
that the revisional power is a discretionary power which is to be
exercised in aid of justice. Whether the High Court should exercise its
revisional jurisdiction depends upon the facts and circumstances of
that case.

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
3
7. Further, it is apposite to refer to the powers and limits of the
criminal revisional court, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment K.Ravi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ANR. 2024 INSC 642
observed that the object of remedy of the criminal revision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be
a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to
scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of
careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The
revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence,
material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are
merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction
of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a
routine manner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain
Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 653
has categorically held that at the stage of hearing on the charges,
entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if
no offense is made out from evidence produced then only the
accused will be discharged, the relevant para are quoted below :
"11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of
discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the trial
court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge-
sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law
is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced
by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out
then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and
acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of
trial. At the stage of charge, the court has to satisfy that a prima facie
case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the
Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that
in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse
of process of the court.
2. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of
this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [State of

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
4
Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191 : (2022) 1
SCC (Cri) 286] . Relevant paras are extracted below : (SCC pp. 197-98,
para 11)
" 11. … 11.1. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v.
State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] ,
this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227CrPC. What
is required to be considered at the time of framing of the
charge and/or considering the discharge application has been
considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and
held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is
observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would
take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the
police or the documents produced before the court which ex
facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against
the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further
observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is
sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under
Section 228CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is
further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the
facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial
has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for
the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is
really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in State of Karnataka
v. M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019)
7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S)
380] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench
has observed and held in para 25 as under : (SCC p. 526)
' 25. The High Court [Hiremath v. State of Karnataka,
2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been
cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing
with an application for discharge under the provisions
of Section 239CrPC. The parameters which govern
the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression
in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled
principle of law that at the stage of considering an
application for discharge the court must proceed on

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
5
the assumption that the material which has been
brought on the record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine whether
the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v.
N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan,
(2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014)
2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions
on the subject, this Court held : (N. Suresh Rajan case
[State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709
: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] ,
SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)
" 29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials
has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go
deep into the matter and hold that the materials would
not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to
be considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed and
not whether a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks
that the accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its probative
value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction,
the court has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law does not
permit a mini trial at this stage."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in following judgments Rajnish
Kumar Biswakarma Vs. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR. 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 937, State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2005) 1 SCC 568, Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin & Anr. v. Sri
Gopal Sheelum Reddy also Known as Nithya Bhaktananda and
Anr. (2018) 2 SCC 93, P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC
398, State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239, dealt with the
issues related to stages of charge and discharge and thereafter
reiterated the well-settled principles that while considering the prayer
for discharge, the trial Court cannot consider any document which is
not the part of the charge-sheet. Further, nothing in the Code gives
the accused a right to file material at the charge/discharge stage and
the accused cannot ordinarily invoke s. 91 CrPC to get documents
produced for his defense at this stage. The trial judge may sift and

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
6
weigh evidence, but only to see whether a prima facie case exists
but, cannot weigh the pros and cons of the evidence and discharge
because the meticulous consideration of evidence is not required at
the charge/discharge stage. At the stage of charge/discharge the
Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that
a prima facie case of commission of offense alleged has been made
out against the accused persons and if there is no prima facie case
of commission of offense then accused shall be discharged.
res integra
10. Therefore, the issue is no longer . It is well settled by a
consistent line of Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions referred above,
that at the stage of framing of charge or discharge under ss. 227/228
CrPC, the Court's inquiry is confined to whether the material placed
by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case, i.e, grounds for
presuming that the accused has committed the offense, and not
grounds for conviction. The Court may sift and weigh the material,
but only for this limited purpose, and it must not hold a mini-trial,
probe the evidence deeply, test its truthfulness or sufficiency, or
separate the grain from the chaff, as these are matters for trial.
11. Upon perusal of the impugned order in the light of the above
noted well settled legal position and after having considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, the
involvement of the revisionists in the incident cannot be ruled out.
12. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial
Court has dealt with each and every ground taken by the revisionists
in discharge application. Learned trial Court found that victim, in her
statement, has specifically stated that revisionist no.1 assured to
marry her and that is why the first information report was lodged
belatedly. Learned trial Court also found that delay has also been
explained by witness Munna Ram. It was also observed that
revisionist / accused Arun Kumar himself has admitted that at the
time of incident, he was working in the hospital where the incident in
question occurred. Learned trial Court also fairly observed that it is
not mandatory to take testimony of independent witnesses
specifically in the matter of rape, as the said offence is typically
committed in secrecy. Mere delay in filing the first information report
in the cases of sexual harassment or rape is not sufficient to declare
the prosecution story as false. Dr. Santosh is not M.B.B.S. qualified,
however he is B.A.M.S., therefore his opinion is not of much
relevance. This Court has also perused the copies of statements of

CRLR No. 1608 of 2026
7
victim recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Victim, in her
both statements, has categorically stated that she has been raped
on 18.04.2024 at 10:00 P.M. by revisionist. Therefore, there is no
contradiction as far as date, time and place of incident are
concerned. After collecting sufficient evidence, charge-sheet has
been rightly submitted by the investigating officer. There is no
illegality or irregularity or perversity in cognizance taking order. No
criminal revision lies for setting aside / quashing of charge-sheet.
13. The impugned order has been passed after a careful
consideration of the matter as well as all the grounds taken in
discharge application, which appears to be in accordance with law.
The impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds no illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders i.e. order dated
15.09.2025 and 26.06.2023 warranting interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, relief prayed for by way of present
criminal revision is hereby refused.
14. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed .
October 14, 2026
ss
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad