# Karan Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 684
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 800 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karan-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50731
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
revision - Section 239 - when accused
may be discharged , Section240 - framing
of charge - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 406 - revisional jurisdiction
of the higher court is a very limited one
and cannot be exercised in a routine
manner - inbuilt restrictions - should not
be against an interim or interlocutory
order - revisional jurisdiction should be
exercised on a question of law - when
factual appreciation is involved, then it
must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding - power is
required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by
the court - Merely an apprehension or
suspicion of the same would not be a
sufficient ground for interference. (Para -
17,18)
Trial court rejected discharge application of
accused-revisionists - deceived into executing a
sale deed in favor of revisionist no. 2 -
informant, who owned the plot, was intoxicated
on day of deed's execution - accused were
given an opportunity to prove their transactions
and refute allegations - court noted that
revisionists' documents couldn't be considered
during hearing - hence revision. (Para - 19)

HELD:-Court
below
rightly
observed
in
impugned order that documents filed by
revisionist in support of their claim for discharge
cannot be taken into account at the stage of
hearing and disposal of discharge application.
Court finds no reason to interfere with
impugned order, as it is not irregular, illegal, or
proprietary, and the charges against the
accused revisionist are not groundless. (Para -
19,20)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to his wife Smt. Madina, her two minor
daughters as well as her third daughter Km.
Huma and if total amount of maintenance
which is awarded against the revisionist in
different proceedings is considered that
comes to Rs. 19,500/-. This amount comes
around 1/3 of the salary of the revisionist
who is engaged in Government service and
is a teacher in basic primary school.
Therefore, the amount awarded by the court
below to the respondent No. 2 cannot be
considered as excessive, keeping in view
the totality of facts and circumstances
related to the case.

9. On the foregoing discussions, I find
that there is no illegality, irregularity,
perversity in the impugned order passed by
court below. Present revision is devoid of
merits and therefore, it is dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 684
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023 &
16.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 800 of 2023

Karan Singh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, Sri Tej Bahadur Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Anup Kumar, Sri Ram Das Yadav,
Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
revision - Section 239 - when accused
may be discharged , Section240 - framing
of charge - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 406 - revisional jurisdiction
of the higher court is a very limited one
and cannot be exercised in a routine
manner - inbuilt restrictions - should not
be against an interim or interlocutory
order - revisional jurisdiction should be
exercised on a question of law - when
factual appreciation is involved, then it
must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding - power is
required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by
the court - Merely an apprehension or
suspicion of the same would not be a
sufficient ground for interference. (Para -
17,18)
Trial court rejected discharge application of
accused-revisionists - deceived into executing a
sale deed in favor of revisionist no. 2 -
informant, who owned the plot, was intoxicated
on day of deed's execution - accused were
given an opportunity to prove their transactions
and refute allegations - court noted that
revisionists' documents couldn't be considered
during hearing - hence revision. (Para - 19)

HELD:-Court
below
rightly
observed
in
impugned order that documents filed by
revisionist in support of their claim for discharge
cannot be taken into account at the stage of
hearing and disposal of discharge application.
Court finds no reason to interfere with
impugned order, as it is not irregular, illegal, or
proprietary, and the charges against the
accused revisionist are not groundless. (Para -
19,20)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs The St. of Karn. &
ors., 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 628

2. Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs The St. of
Maha. & ors., 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 145

3. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9
SCC 460
9 All. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
685
4. Sushila Agarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) & anr.
, 2020 5 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Counter affidavit has been filed and
the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State are present.

3. Instant criminal revision has been
preferred against judgment and order dated
3.1.2023
passed
by
learned
Judicial
Magistrate-Ist, Hapur in Crl. Case No. 670
of 2022 (State Vs. Karan Singh and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2022,
under
Sections
420, 406
IPC,
P.S.
Babugarh,
District
Hapur,
whereby
discharge
application
moved
by
the
revisionist accused has been dismissed.

4. Factual matrix of the case are that
opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. with
P.S. concerned on 20.1.2022 against
revisionists with averment that informant is
a senior citizen and physically disabled
person. He is Bhumidhar of Khasra No.
955, Area 0.2530 hectare agricultural land
which he had purchased for earning
livelihood for his family. His co-villager
Karan Singh s/o Chhidda Singh asked him
to be a witness in a gift deed which was to
be executed by him in favour of his
daughter-in-law Monika Tyagi and the
informant conceded to be a witness of
proposed gift deed, however, on 21.8.2019
when he reached at Sub-Registrar Officer,
Hapur, accused persons had got him
intoxicated by administering him liquor and
made him to sign a sale deed with regard to
said agricultural land in collusion with
Amarpal (revisionist no. 3). Informant
came to know about this fraudulent deed
when he got a copy of the same from SubRegistrar Office. No consideration passed
in respect of said sale deed and cheques
which were described at the foot of sale
deed belong to account of Karan Singh but
the amount of cheques was not deposited in
said account. In fact, no consideration
passed between the vendor and vendee in
respect of said sale deed.

5. Police investigated the case and
filed
charge
sheet
against
accused
revisionists after finding the complicity of
accused persons in said offence. Accused
persons were enlarged on anticipatory bail
by the order of Court of Session.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted
that
the
revisionists
were
enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order
dated 20.1.2023. Dispute is essentially of
civil
nature,
inasmuch
as
the
informant/opposite party no. 2 has filed a
civil suit in Court of Civil Judge, J.D.-Ist
Hapur cited as Case No. 148 of 2019
(Husanchand Vs.
Monika Tyagi)
on
20.10.2019 in which he has sought relief of
cancellation of alleged sale deed. Opposite
party no. 2 never presented the cheques
before his banker for encashment with mala
fide
intention.
Revisionists
are
still
prepared to pay the amount of Rs.
7,60,000/-. The present F.I.R. was lodged
after two and half years of the incident with
mala fide intention as the rate of land
escalated; with a view to deprive the
revisionist no. 2 for purchasing land. The
F.I.R. was lodged on 20.1.2022 subsequent
to filing of civil suit.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. The
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Karnataka and Ors.,2021 0
Supreme (SC) 628, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court in paragraph no. 44 has observed as
under:-

44. Furthermore, in the landmark
judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 9 regarding
exercise of inherent powers under section
482 of CrPC, this Court has laid down
following categories of instances wherein
inherent powers of the can be exercised in
order to secure the ends of justice. These
are:-

"(1) where the allegations made
in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the
First
Information
Report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused;

(4) where the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

8. Learned court below has dismissed
the application for discharge moved by the
revisionist against the weight of evidence
on record. Out of total consideration of Rs.
7,60,000/- Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the
revisionist in cash and for remaining
amount, two post dated cheques bearing
date 15.1.2020 for Rs. 6,00,000/- and other
cheque bearing date 15.10.2019 of Rs.
1,60,000/- were given to the vendor
(opposite party no. 2).

9. It is further submitted that it is
settled law that while one civil proceeding
is pending, criminal proceedings on the
same cause of action is not maintainable
but this fact has not been considered by the
court below, in fact no offence has been
committed by the revisionist and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case
due to mala fide intention, therefore
9 All. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
687
revision should be allowed and the
impugned order may be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State submitted that in counter affidavit,
photocopy of the disputed cheques has
been filed at page nos. 3o to 31, which
reveals that the date mentioned in cheques
is not identical to that mentioned in
disputed sale deed, as the cheque of Rs.
1,60,000/- bears date 15.10.2019 and the
cheque amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- bears
the date of 15.1.2020 whereas in sale deed
date of cheques is mentioned as 15.1.2020
and 15.10.2020 respectively.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent also cited a judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sau.
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The Stat of
Maharashtra and Ors., 2019 0 Supreme
(SC) 145, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph no. 9 has observed as under:-

"9. Having heard the learned
Senior Counsel and examined the material
on record, we are of the considered view
that the High Court ought not to have set
aside the order passed by the Trial Court
issuing summons to the Respondents. A
perusal of the complaint discloses that
prima facie, offences that are alleged
against the Respondents. The correctness
or otherwise of the said allegations has to
be decided only in the Trial. At the initial
stage of issuance of process it is not open
to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by
entering into the merits of the contentions
made on behalf of the accused. Criminal
complaints cannot be quashed only on the
ground that the allegations made therein
appear to be of a civil nature. If the
ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are prima facie made out in the
complaint, the criminal proceeding shall
not be interdicted."

12. It is settled law that on same set of
facts civil and criminal liability both may
occur and there is no prohibition of
initiating criminal proceedings where on
the basis of similar facts, criminal liability
is also made out against accused persons.
In disputed cheques, name of drawee is not
mentioned which also shows mala fide
intention of revisionist from the very
beginning.
Revisionist
no.
1
never
deposited the amount covered in said
cheques in his account to get said cheques
encashed by drawee. In fact, opposite party
no. 2 never intended to execute a sale deed
of land and he was defrauded by the
revisionist regarding nature of instrument
and he was made to execute sale deed in
manipulation of a gift deed.

13. Investigating officer recorded
statements of bank officer, Ravish Kumar
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that
maximum balance lying in the account of
Karan Singh (revisionist no. 1) between
August, 2019 to February, 2022 was only
Rs. and said cheques were issued by his
bank but the amount thereof has not been
debited from the bank as yet.

14. He lastly submitted that this is
admitted fact that possession of respondent
no. 2 is still continuing on the land shown
to have been sold to revisionist no. 2. There
is no infirmity or illegality in impugned
order passed by learned court below,
therefore, the revision is liable to be
dismissed. Accused revisionist is a man of
criminal antecedent and his criminal history
is mentioned in counter affidavit.

15. Discharge application was filed by
the revisionist pursuant to order of this
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court passed in Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No. 32456 of 2022, wherein
this Court while dismissing the prayer
made by the present revisionist, for
quashing the charge sheet, non bailable
warrant issued by the court as well as entire
proceedings in present Case Crime No. 29
of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.
Babugarh, District Hapur in the court of
Judicial
Magistrate,
Hapur,
gave
an
opportunity to accused persons to appear
before court concerned within one month
and move an application for discharge
and the same shall be considered and
disposed of by the court concerned in
accordance with law after affording
opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
It was also directed that for a period of
one month and till disposal of application
for discharge, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants. The accused
persons moved an application under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. praying for discharge
which was dismissed by impugned order
by the trial court and it is also observed
that therein that as accused persons are
not enlarged on bail till date and they are
having every knowledge of the case,
therefore, let non bailable warrant be
issued against them.

16. Section 239 Cr.P.C. and Section
240 Cr.P.C. read as under:-

"239. When accused shall be
discharged. If, upon considering the police
report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination,
if any, of the accused as the Magistrate
thinks necessary and after giving the
prosecution and the accused an opportunity
of being heard, the Magistrate considers
the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused,
and record his reasons for so doing.

240. Framing of charge.

(1) If, upon such consideration,
examination, if any, and hearing, the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence triable under this
Chapter,
which
such
Magistrate
is
competent to try and which, in his opinion,
could be adequately punished by him, he
shall frame in writing a charge against the
accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read
and explained to the accused, and he shall
be asked whether he pleads guilty of the
offence charged or claims to be tried."

17. From perusal of above provisions,
it is obvious that magistrate can only
discharge an accused where it is found that
discharge
is
groundless
and
while
discharging the accused in such case he
will record the reasons for so doing.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460,
considered scope of provisions of Section
397, 482 Cr.P.C. at length in a case where
High Court had quashed the charge framed
against respondent under Section 306 IPC
in a criminal revision while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and
482 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court held that
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. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against
an interim or interlocutory order. The Court
has to keep in mind that the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead
to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the
charge has been framed properly and in
accordance with law in a given case, it may
9 All. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
689
be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories
aforestated. Even framing of charge is a
much advanced stage in the proceedings
under the Cr.P.C. Right from the case of
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan
Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561],
which was reiterated with approval in the
case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], the
courts have stated the principle that if the
FIR does not disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence, the Court would be
justified in quashing the investigation on
the basis of the information as laid or
received. It is further stated that the legal
position appears to be that if an offence is
disclosed, the court will not normally
interfere with an investigation into the case
and will permit investigation into the
offence alleged to have been committed; if,
however, the materials do not disclose an
offence, no investigation should normally
be permitted. Whether an offence has been
disclosed or not, must necessarily depend
on the facts and circumstances of each
case. If on consideration of the relevant
materials, the Court is satisfied that an
offence is disclosed, it will normally not
interfere with the investigation into the
offence and will generally allow the
investigation into the offence to be
completed in order to collect materials for
proving the offence. In Bhajan Lal's case
(supra), the Court also stated that though it
may not be possible to lay down any
precise,
clearly
defined,
sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae or to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein power
under Section 482 of the Code for quashing
of an FIR should be exercised, there are
circumstances where the Court may be
justified in exercising such jurisdiction.
These are, where the FIR does not prima
facie constitute any offence, does not
disclose a cognizable offence justifying
investigation by the police; where the
allegations are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused; where
there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code; and
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge. Despite
stating
these
grounds,
the
Court
unambiguously uttered a note of caution to
the effect that power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that
too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court
also warned that the Court would not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims or caprice.

18. The above-stated principles
clearly show that inherent as well as
revisional jurisdiction should be exercised
cautiously. If the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code in relation to quashing of
an FIR is circumscribed by the factum and
caution afore-noticed, in that event, the
revisional jurisdiction, particularly while
dealing with framing of a charge, has to be
even more limited. Framing of a charge is
an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court
in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless
the accused is discharged under Section
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
227 of the Code. Under both these
provisions, the court is required to consider
the 'record of the case' and documents
submitted therewith and, after hearing the
parties, may either discharge the accused or
where it appears to the court and in its
opinion there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence, it
shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the
Court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the
accused and frame the charge accordingly.
This presumption is not a presumption of
law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of
an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case. There is a fine
distinction
between
the
language
of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section
227 is expression of a definite opinion and
judgment of the Court while Section 228 is
tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court should form
an opinion that the accused is certainly
guilty of committing an offence, is an
approach which is impermissible in terms
of Section 228 of the Code. It may also be
noticed that the revisional jurisdiction
exercised by the High Court is in a way
final and no inter court remedy is available
in such cases. Of course, it may be subject
to jurisdiction of this court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. Normally,
a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised
on a question of law. However, when
factual appreciation is involved, then it
must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding. Basically,
the power is required to be exercised so
that justice is done and there is no abuse of
power
by
the
court.
Merely
an
apprehension or suspicion of the same
would not be a sufficient ground for
interference in such cases.

19. In present case, learned trial court
has rejected the discharge application
moved
by
accused-revisionist
while
passing a reasoned order and discussing the
facts of the case at length. This is admitted
case that accused persons belong to one
family. The allegation is that accused
persons got a sale deed executed in the
favour of Monika by playing deception on
the informant who was owner of plot in
question. It is also alleged that said sale
deed was got executed by the informant at
the instance of accused persons by keeping
him in dark regarding nature of instrument
which he was going to execute. The
informant executed the said sale deed in the
impression that he was to be witness of gift
deed to be executed by accused Karan in
favour of his daughter-in-law Monika
Tyagi regarding his own land and on the date
of execution of sale deed he was intoxicated
by accused persons. Even cheques which were
mentioned at the foot of disputed sale deed,
were not drawn on bank account of accused
Karan and not on account of purchaser Smt.
Monika Tyagi. The cheques were bearing the
name of payee (vendor). Even the fund was
insufficient to encash the said cheques. All
these facts cannot be ignored at this stage and
accused persons will get opportunity to
establish their bona fide alleged transaction
and refute the allegations made in F.I.R. as
well as in statement of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned court
below has rightly observed in impugned order
that the documents filed by the revisionist in
support of their claim for discharge cannot be
taken into account at the stage of hearing and
disposal of discharge application.

20. On facts of the case a prima facie
case is made out against accused persons to
9 All. Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
691
put them on trial for the charges levelled
against them and it cannot be held that
the charge against accused revisionist is
groundless, therefore, I find no good
reason to interfere in impugned order
passed by learned court below as it does
not suffer from irregularity, illegality or
any proprietary. Revision is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Revision stands dismissed, however, as
offence is punishable with maximum
term of seven years of imprisonment, it is
directed
that
the
revisionists
shall
surrender before the concerned court
below within one month from today and
in case a regular bail application is filed,
the same be decided in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in case
of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

21. For the period of one month from
today or till the time of surrender of the
revisionists before the concerned court
below, whichever is earlier, no coercive
action
shall
be
taken
against
the
revisionists, in the above case.

22. With the above observations and
directions, this application is disposed of.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondents.

2. This is correction application of the
order dated 20.7.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that while dismissing the present
criminal revision, this Court observed in
last page of the order dated 20.7.2023 as
follows:-

".....however,
as
offence
is
punishable with maximum term of seven
years of imprisonment, it is directed that
the revisionists shall surrender before the
concerned court below within one month
from today and in case a regular bail
application is filed, the same be decided in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
825.

For the period of one month from
today or till the time of surrender of the
revisionists before the concerned court
below, whichever is earlier, no coercive
action
shall
be
taken
against
the
revisionists, in the above case."

4. It is further submitted that as above
direction is in conflict with the order passed
by Additional Session Court/F.T.C., Court
No. 2 in Second Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 131 of 2023 (Karan Singh
and two others Vs. State), whereby the
court below vide order dated 20.1.2023
allowed the second anticipatory bail
application of the revisionist and enlarged
them on anticipatory bail subject to certain
conditions without fixing any time limit
and the anticipatory bail order will be
treated to be applicable till conclusion of
trial in pursuance of directions of Apex
Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2020 5
SCC 1, and hence there is no need to issue
any directions regarding surrender of the
accused before court below and seeking
regular bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
private respondent submitted that conduct
of the accused deserves no leniency but he
did not dispute the fact that accused
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionists were enlarged on anticipatory
bail by orders of Additional Session Court
and same order has not been set aside by
any competent court.

6. Correction application is hereby
allowed.

7. Aforesaid cited observations of this
Court stand expunged in final order dated
20.7.2023.

8. This order shall be treated as part
of the order dated 20.7.2023.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 692
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 2023

Dev Narain ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, Sri V.K. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B &
323- Dowry prohibition Act, 1961
-
Section3/4
,
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 216 - Court
may alter charge - Court may alter or add
to
any
charge
at
any
time
before
judgment is pronounced but alteration of
charge and deletion of charge hold
different field and these two cannot be
intermingled, otherwise it will cause
miscarriage of justice - trial court in
exercise of its powers under Section 216
Cr.P.C. cannot delete the charges framed
by it. (Para - 9,11)

Petitioner seeks deletion of a charge of
conspiracy - application moved under Section
216 Cr.P.C. by revisionist - for alteration of
charges framed against him - rejected by court
below - hence revision. (Para - 4)

HELD:-Deletion of a charge not permissible
under Section 216 of the Code. Charge once
framed must lead to either acquittal or
conviction at the conclusion of trial. No illegality,
irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order
passed by trial court.(Para - 14,16)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nanhey Bhaiya @ Nanhan Singh & ors. Vs
St. Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. , U/S 482 No.2556
of 2023

2. P. Kartikalakshmi Vs Sri Ganesh & anr. ,
(2017) 3 SCC 347

3. Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey @. Vs St. Of U.P,
2003 CrLJ 196

4. Verghese Stephen Vs C.B.I. , 2007 Cr.L.J.
4080

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Ojha, Advocate,
holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Yadav,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Deepak Kapoor, learend AGA for the State
and perused the material placed on record.

2. As per the office report, service
report is still awaited.

3. Keeping in view the fact that the
present revision is pending since 2.2.2023
and service of notice could not be affected
by learned CJM on opposite party No.2.