At the stage of discharge, the court must accept the prosecution's evidence as true without conducting a mini-trial. Judicial intervention is restricted to cases where the material fails to prima facie disclose an offense or where the proceedings constitute a clear abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Criminal Case No. 59452 of 2022, State of U.P. vs. Asim Raza Khan, arising out of Case Crime No. 738 of 2022, under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, rejecting the discharge application filed by the revisionist and order dated 13.10.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 11218 of 2022, State vs. Asim Raza Khan, arising out of Case Crime No. 738 of 2022, under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, whereby charge has been framed against the revisionist.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged a first information report against the revisionist by presenting written report to S.S.P., Moradabad. As per the FIR, the revisionist was a friend of husband of informant, who called upon her husband in his office and stated that he (revisionist) is in the business of export and he invests people’s money and gives them good returns. He further stated that banks are not giving them anything anyway. However, he will give them profit money too. Thereby, he trapped the informant and her daughter and they gave different amounts on different dates, mostly through cheques. A total of Rs.5,00,000/- was taken by the revisionist from informant and her daughter. He gave a profit of Rs.18,000/- for first three months to informant. He did not return even single rupee to the daughter of informant. Thereafter, he not only stopped to give any payment, he even stopped picking up the calls of the informant and is now threatening them. On the aforesaid, written report of the informant, an FIR was lodged vide Case Crime No. 738 of 2022, under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, against the revisionist and his clerk. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the revisionist, upon which, the cognizance was taken and the trial commenced. The revisionist filed a discharge application, which was rejected by the learned trial Court vide it’s impugned order dated 22.09.2025 and thereafter charge was also framed against the revisionist on 13.10.2025 under Sections 406 and 506 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is doing business of Brass Metal Works in the name of M/s. Alpin Export and the firm is duly registered with Export and Import Department since year 2000. The first informant was working as teacher in a private school and had been retrenched from the service while, her daughter was working in some private firm in Noida and during the pandamic of COVID-19, she lost her job. After retrenchment from service, the first informant asked her husband to get her money invested at some safe place, who suggested her to invest money in business of the revisionist. The revisionist told that he invests the people’s money and give them good returns. After taking into good relationship between the revisionist and first informant, the first informant and her daughter invested Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- each). From the first three months, the revisionist paid Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- are yet to be returned. After that he could not return the remaining amount, because business activities were completely paralyzed during Pandemic of COVID-19. The revisionist assured the first informant to return her money as soon as possible.

5. It is next submi