At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Purnedu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the Victim and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11 Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 430 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, 427, 504, 506, 353 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Hazrat Ganj Lucknow. By the order impugned, the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge application moved by the Revisionists. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision that F.I.R. was lodged against the Revisionists on 13.07.2016 falsely implicating them. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the revisionist no.1 who is a Consolidation Officer, came to the office of Dr. Hariom, the then Consolidation Commissioner on 13.07.2016 in the afternoon at around 3:15 P.M. The purpose of visit as disclosed by the Revisionist no. 1 was to get his transfer from District Amethi to District Ballia cancelled. The slip was sent to the Consolidation Commissioner through a peon named Chandan Singh. When the Revisionists met the Commissioner, Revisionist no. 1 started putting pressure on him to get his transfer cancelled and on refusal of the Commissioner, he became very angry and suddenly started abusing the Consolidation Commissioner and his son called in four other persons inside the Commissioners’ office and they all manhandled him and beat him up. The Revisionists also tried to strangulate the Commissioner. The Revisionist no.2 broke a glass kept on the table and attacked the Commissioner with it, with the intention to kill him but by that time, the office peons, Chandan Singh, Raj Kumar and Ram Kishun came in and saved the Commissioner from the next blow. Thereafter, both the Revisionists ran away.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the peon Raj Kumar Singh arrayed as respondent no.2. The police recorded the statement of the complainant and three other employees of the office of the Consolidation Commissioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They also recorded the statement of Dr. Hari Om, the victim. A biased investigation was carried out by the Investigation Officer. Dr. Hariom got his medical report fabricated. After registration of F.I.R. the revisionist no.1 filed a writ petition praying for quashing of the F.I.R.. This Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the revisionist no.1 till the filing of the charge sheet. During hearing of such petition for F.I.R. quashing, the Court asked the Circle Officer/Investigation Officer to indicate by his personal affidavit as to how offence under Section 307 was made out. Before filing such affidavit, chargesheet was filed as a result the petition itself became infructuous and was dismissed as such on 30.08.2016.

4. It has been stated by the Revisionists that Dr. Hariom is an I.A.S. officer and an influential person and under his influence the services of the petitioner were also terminated within one and a half months from the date of incident although such termination and suspension order has been set aside by this Court on 20.02.2019 as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is stated that Revisionists have been falsely implicated. The opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit before the trial Court deposing there in that entire case set up by the victim as mentioned in his F.I.R. is false and as a result of pressure being put upon him by the then Consolidation Commissioner. It has further been stated that in fact it was the revisionist no.1 who had been assaulted by Dr. Hariom, Raj Kumar, Chandan Singh and Ramkishun the revisionist no.1 filed a complaint against them to the Police but no action has been taken thereon.

5. It has been further stated that revisionist no. 2 was not involved in the case as his name is ‘Mohit Pandey’ and not ‘D