At the stage of framing charges, the court must satisfy itself that a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion. It is not required to perform a detailed evaluation of evidence or resolve contradictory statements, as these are matters to be determined during the course of a full trial.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

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

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also filed written submissions.

3. By means of instant criminal revision, the revisionists have prayed to quash/set aside the order dated 21.02.2026 passed in S.T. No. 216 of 2026 ( State vs. Sandeep Soni and Ors. ) by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Sitapur relating to Case Crime No. 765/23, U/s 498-A, 354, 307, 342, 323, 326-A of IPC, relating to P.S. Hargaon, District-Sitapur, so far as it relates to the present revisionists, as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending against the revisionists.

4. At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that the charges have been framed against accused- revisionists by learned trial court vide order dated 21.02.2026 under Sections 498- A, 354, 307, 342, 323, 326-A IPC. The revision against framing of charges at the instance of accused- revisionists is not maintainable. As such the only course open for the revisionists is to face trial and put fourth their case at the appropriate stage after farming of charges, trial has commenced and the accused- revisionists will have opportunity to set out their defence. He also submits that after framing of charges, the same cannot be be deleted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the learned trial court has framed charges against the revisionists in cursory manner without looking into the oral evidence and the medical evidence collected during investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists next submitted that as per the statement of the victim subsequently made before the doctor, she is resiling from the recital made in the FIR lodged by her brother and it is also relevant fact that no smell of petrol etc. was found and that wife of revisionist no.1 got burnt accidentally on her own and there was no foul play . Subsequently, the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the doctor forcefully made her to write that she herself poured hot water on her person. She has also stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is still residing at her parental place. She has made wrong statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her father- in-law poured some substance on her back and Shiva had lit a matchstick due to which she sustained serious injuries. He also submitted that no case under sections 307 and 326-A IPC is made out on the basis of evidence collected during investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionists has filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 179 of 2024 ( Sandeep and others Vs. State of U.P. and others ) before this Court with the prayer to quash the FIR lodged in the case under the aforesaid sections wherein this Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the revisionists that all the family members have been roped in by the brother of the victim whereas, the victim has subsequently resiled from occurrence of any such incident. This Court directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the said case unless there is sufficient and credible evidence available against the them indicating commission of criminal offence as alleged in the impugned FIR.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists las