HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Vidhi Narayan Yadav .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application without recording any evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the present case is a counter-blast case. The place of occurrence is different, though the time is alleged to be the same. The medical examination was conducted after six days. The age of the revisionist, who is 61 years old, has also not been considered by the learned trial court.

3, The genesis of the present case is as follows:-

4. On 27.09.2021, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant and 20 other unknown persons before the Judicial Magistrate, District Maharajganj, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 703 of 2021 (Smt. Renu Gupta vs. Vidhi Narayan and 20 unknown persons), seeking prosecution of the applicant under Sections 308, 323, 325, 354, 452, 504, and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the statements of Smt. Rambha Devi (P.W.-1), Smt. Sukhrani (P.W.-2), and Shri Deshbandhu Gupta (P.W.-3) were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that all the statements are contradictory to each other and fail to support the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the medical examination of the complainant took place on 18.03.2021 at about 3:30 p.m. at District Hospital, Maharajganj. All these facts and circumstances were not considered by the learned trial court while taking cognizance under Sections 323, 325, 354, 452, 504, and 506 I.P.C.

6. Thereafter, Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2024 (Vidhi Narayan vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed before the Sessions Judge, District Maharajganj, which was dismissed on 27.08.2024. Subsequently, challenging both the orders, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court, and the applicant was directed to file a discharge application before the learned trial court. The said discharge application has been rejected without passing a reasoned or speaking order.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the case is a counter-blast. Though the time of occurrence is the same, the place of occurrence is different, and certain contradictions have been raised in this regard.

8. The learned trial court passed the summoning order after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The order taking cognizance was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge and was rejected. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and the applicant was directed to file a discharge application before the competent court. The revisionist was summoned after recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and the cognizance order was also confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The finding of the learned trial court that after recording the statement under section 244 Cr.P.C. thereafter the revisionist may be discharged. Section 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as follows: "244. Evidence for prosecution.—(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

245. When accused shall be discharged.—(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for re