# Smt. Mili Nath Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 890
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-28
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Revision No. 6331 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mili-nath-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52596
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Swetashwa Agarwal, G.A., Shivam Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Whether this criminal revision is maintainable on
behalf of the informant, living abroad, filed by
mother of the deceased on the basis of power
of attorney executed by her (the informant)
where affidavit in support of revision has been
sworn by the mother of the deceased instead of
the informant herself.
Whether the trial court has considered all these
facts and the material on record collected during
the course of investigation and recorded its
finding while discharging the opposite party no.
2

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
Sections 397/401, 227; The Indian Penal
Code,1860- Sections 302, 201, 452, 354,
354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D)- Procedural
defects which do not go to the root of the
matter should not be permitted to defeat
a just cause -The nature of statements
seems to give rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion and unless it is grave
suspicion, the accused cannot be put to
face the trial for such allegations and the
learned trial court will be right to
discharge the accused. (E-15)

Held- (1) Procedural defects which do not go to
the root of the matter should not be permitted
to defeat a just cause. As far as possible a
substantial right should not be allowed to be
defeated on the technical grounds of procedural
irregularity so as to ensure that no injustice be
done to any party.
(2) Trial court while passing the order on
discharge application dated 17.05.2024 has
considered all these facts and the material on
record
collected
during
the
course
of
investigation and recorded its finding while
discharging the opposite party no. 2 for the
offence under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C. and directing him to be tried
under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. for murder of
the deceased child by burning in his house and
for hiding and destroying the evidence.
(Para 16, 17, 29 & 30)

Case Law Cited
HAZRAT DEEN Versus STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 134;Syed
Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs. Hasan Raza Khan and
Ors. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Consolidation)
No.
534
of
2002
decided
on
22.01.2016.;Honnaiah T.H. Versus State of
Karnataka and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1001;NADIR KHAN Versus THE STATE (DELHI
10 All. Smt. Mili Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
891
ADMINISTRATION) (1975) 2 SCC 406;Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat;Sanjai
Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Another (2022)
15 SCC 720;Ghulam Hassan Beigh Versus
Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others (2022)
12 SCC 657;Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
List of Acts
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Discharge
application;
Maintainability;
Procedural defects; Substantial right should not
be allowed to be defeated; technical grounds of
procedural irregularity; unless grave suspicion;
the accused cannot be put to face the trial.

Case Arising From
Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Gautam Buddha Nagar dated 17.05.2024 in
Sessions Case No. 57 of 2024 under Section
302, 201, 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D)
I.P.C., Police Station Sector 113, Gautam
Buddha Nagar arising out of Crime No. 437 of
2022 on an application for discharge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. by which the learned court
has discharged the accused/opposite party no. 2
for offences under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i),
354-A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C. and directed him to be
tried under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. only.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Dubey,
Abhinav Gaur, Mohit Singh, Sr. Advocate, Vibhu
Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Swetashwa
Agarwal, G.A., Shivam Yadav

## Text

890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
income, the presumption will be easily
permissible against him."

(Emphasis supplied)

29. On the deeper scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the case, materials
and evidence available on record and the
impugned judgment as well as after huge
deliberations as above, this Court finds that
the trial court has not committed any
illegality or perversity in passing the
impugned judgment and awarding Rs.
20,000/- per month to opposite party no.2
and Rs. 20,000/- per month to opposite
party no.3 towards monthly maintenance
allowance from the date of filing of the
instant application.

30. The present criminal revision lacks
merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 890
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBASH CHANDRA SHARMA,
J.

Criminal Revision No. 6331 of 2024

Smt. Mili Nath ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Manoj Kumar Dubey, Abhinav Gaur, Mohit
Singh, Sr. Advocate, Vibhu Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Swetashwa Agarwal, G.A., Shivam Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Whether this criminal revision is maintainable on
behalf of the informant, living abroad, filed by
mother of the deceased on the basis of power
of attorney executed by her (the informant)
where affidavit in support of revision has been
sworn by the mother of the deceased instead of
the informant herself.
Whether the trial court has considered all these
facts and the material on record collected during
the course of investigation and recorded its
finding while discharging the opposite party no.
2

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
Sections 397/401, 227; The Indian Penal
Code,1860- Sections 302, 201, 452, 354,
354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D)- Procedural
defects which do not go to the root of the
matter should not be permitted to defeat
a just cause -The nature of statements
seems to give rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion and unless it is grave
suspicion, the accused cannot be put to
face the trial for such allegations and the
learned trial court will be right to
discharge the accused. (E-15)

Held- (1) Procedural defects which do not go to
the root of the matter should not be permitted
to defeat a just cause. As far as possible a
substantial right should not be allowed to be
defeated on the technical grounds of procedural
irregularity so as to ensure that no injustice be
done to any party.
(2) Trial court while passing the order on
discharge application dated 17.05.2024 has
considered all these facts and the material on
record
collected
during
the
course
of
investigation and recorded its finding while
discharging the opposite party no. 2 for the
offence under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C. and directing him to be tried
under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. for murder of
the deceased child by burning in his house and
for hiding and destroying the evidence.
(Para 16, 17, 29 & 30)

Case Law Cited
HAZRAT DEEN Versus STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 134;Syed
Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs. Hasan Raza Khan and
Ors. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Consolidation)
No.
534
of
2002
decided
on
22.01.2016.;Honnaiah T.H. Versus State of
Karnataka and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1001;NADIR KHAN Versus THE STATE (DELHI
10 All. Smt. Mili Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
891
ADMINISTRATION) (1975) 2 SCC 406;Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat;Sanjai
Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Another (2022)
15 SCC 720;Ghulam Hassan Beigh Versus
Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others (2022)
12 SCC 657;Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
List of Acts
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Discharge
application;
Maintainability;
Procedural defects; Substantial right should not
be allowed to be defeated; technical grounds of
procedural irregularity; unless grave suspicion;
the accused cannot be put to face the trial.

Case Arising From
Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Gautam Buddha Nagar dated 17.05.2024 in
Sessions Case No. 57 of 2024 under Section
302, 201, 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D)
I.P.C., Police Station Sector 113, Gautam
Buddha Nagar arising out of Crime No. 437 of
2022 on an application for discharge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. by which the learned court
has discharged the accused/opposite party no. 2
for offences under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i),
354-A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C. and directed him to be
tried under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. only.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Dubey,
Abhinav Gaur, Mohit Singh, Sr. Advocate, Vibhu
Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Swetashwa
Agarwal, G.A., Shivam Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subash Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Imran Ullah Advocate
assisted by Sri Mohit Singh learned
counsels for the revisionist, Sri Vinay
Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Varad Nath and Sri Swetashwa Agarwal
learned counsels for the opposite party as
well as Sri R.V. Choudhary learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material on
record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed
by the informant against the order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam
Buddha
Nagar
dated
17.05.2024
in
Sessions Case No. 57 of 2024 under
Section 302, 201, 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C., Police Station Sector
113, Gautam Buddha Nagar arising out of
Crime No. 437 of 2022 on an application
for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by
which the learned court has discharged the
accused/opposite party no. 2 for offences
under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C. and directed him to be
tried under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. only.

3. Facts in brief are that on 01.11.2022
an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Mili
Nath under Section 285/338 I.P.C. against
the opposite party no. 2, Dr. Rahul and his
brother Saurabh by giving a Tehreer dated
30.10.2022 mentioning that on 24.10.2022
at 07:50 P.M. the child Anika Kumar aged
about 7 years was burnt in Flat No. 1103
Tower F, Grand Heritage Sector 74, Noida.
Anika went to play in the house of opposite
party no. 2, Dr. Rahul and Saurabh when
her mother was arranging sweets in the
house. After 15 minutes Saurabh came
there and called Smt. Garima Rani (the
mother of Anika). Smt. Garima with her
one year old child Ayan and with Astha
and Neha (working maids in her house)
went to the house of Saurabh where Anika
was standing at the door with burnt body
and clothes then she was taken to the
hospital Yathartha from where she was
advised to take some other hospital as a
result she was taken to Safdarganj hospital
where Anika was treated till 30.10.2022.
Thereafter, she was taken to California for
further treatment where she died. As a
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
result, case was converted under Section
302/201 I.P.C. The I.O. recorded the
statements of mother of the deceased, Smt.
Garima under Section 161Cr.P.C. four
times but she did not disclose the fact that
she was also molested by the opposite party
no. 2 in her house and it was seen by her
daughter. In her fifth statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. the I.O. recorded that
she stated that she was also molested by the
opposite party no. 2 in her house and the
incident was seen by her daughter, the
deceased that was the reason he set her at
fire on the date of incident, as a result she
died. On the basis of this fifth statement
sections 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii),
354(D) I.P.C. were also inducted in the
case and after investigation charge sheet
was filed.

4. An application for discharge was
moved by the opposite party no. 2 which
was decided by the learned trial court by
impugned order dated 17.05.2024. Being
aggrieved with the order in question
present revision was preferred by the
informant Mili Nath through Smt. Garima
Rani
the
mother
of
the
deceased
authorizing her on the basis of power of
attorney.

5. It is argued by learned counsels for
the revisionist that the opposite party no. 2
molested the mother of the deceased in her
house forcefully which the deceased saw
and asked the opposite party to disclose it
before his wife, that was the reason the
opposite party no. 2 burnt the deceased. He
also passed some messages through Whats
App chat in this regard. She (the mother of
the deceased) did not disclose this fact
before the informant due to disturbance so
it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. When her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded by the I.O., she disclosed this fact.
Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
was also recorded in which she told about
this incident. On the basis of her statement
proper investigation was made by I.O. and
then chargesheet was filed under Section
302, 201, 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii) and
354(D) I.P.C. There was sufficient material
for framing of charge accordingly but the
learned trial court passed the order of
discharge in favour of opposite party no. 2
under Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii)
and 354(D) I.P.C. Thus the learned trial
court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction
in deciding the application under Section
227 Cr.P.C. He also argued that at the stage
of framing of charge, only prima facie case
is to be seen. No roven scrutiny is required
to be made amounting to mini trial.
Learned trial court has examined the
material on record as during trial which is
not permissible in law. Hence the order in
question being illegal is liable to be set
aside.

6. He relied his arguments on the case
of GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH Versus
MOHAMMAD
MAQBOOL
MAGREY
AND OTHERS (2022) 12 SCC 657 and
HAZRAT DEEN Versus STATE OF
UTTAR
PRADESH
&
ANR.
2022
LiveLaw (SC) 134.

7.
Learned
counsels
for
the
opposite party no. 2 as well as learned
A.G.A. for the State raised preliminary
objection on the maintainability of this
revision on the ground that Mili Nath is
informant in this case who is living abroad
and has not filed this revision but Smt.
Garima Rani (the mother of the deceased)
has filed this revision in the name of Mili
Nath without any authority. He also argued
that the power of attorney was given by
Mili Nath after filing of this criminal
10 All. Smt. Mili Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
893
revision before this Court when objection
was raised in this regard but it can not
correct the illegality committed in filing of
this criminal revision by Mili Nath living
abroad and on her behalf swearing of
affidavit by Smt. Garima Rani.

8. He further argued that in this
case in the F.I.R. no any version regarding
molestation or commission of obscene
activity by the opposite party no. 2 was
made by the informant Mili Nath though
the incident was reported on the basis of
knowledge of Smt. Garima Rani. After
lodging of F.I.R. four statements of Smt.
Garima Rani under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
were recorded by I.O. but she did not
disclose any such incident being committed
with her by the opposite party no. 2 even at
the time of recording of fourth statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she reduced her
statement in writing and it was written by
her thoughtfully and elaborately, therefore,
it cannot be said that she could not disclose
this fact before the I.O. or she was under
any distress owing to which she failed to
disclose these facts. In fifth statement
which was recorded after long interval she
disclosed
these
facts
those
are
not
believable but are false and made for giving
colour and force to the case.

9. So far as the chatting between
the opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Garima
Rani is concerned the contents used does
not show any obscene material. Only on the
basis of chatting between the two it cannot
be said that the opposite party no. 2 had
bad intention and with that intention he
came into the house of Smt. Garima Rani in
the late hours of night and hugged her
which was seen by the deceased. The
learned trial court has considered all these
facts and passed the order in detail in this
regard. No any illegality or impropriety has
been committed by the learned trial court in
passing the order in question. He also
argued that in case there comes evidence
during trial in this regard the charge may be
altered at any stage before judgment by the
learned trial court. This opportunity is
always open to the revisionist. In this way,
at this stage this revision being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsels for the
opposite party no. 2 relied his argument
regarding maintainability of this revision
on the basis of full Bench decision in the
case of Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs.
Hasan Raza Khan and Ors. in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition (Consolidation) No. 534 of
2002 decided on 22.01.2016.

11. From the arguments made by
learned counsels for both the parties, there
appears two questions to be decided by this
Court.
12. Question no. 1 is whether this
criminal revision is maintainable on behalf
of the informant Mili Nath, living abroad,
filed by Smt. Garima Rani (mother of the
deceased) on the basis of power of attorney
executed by her (the informant) where
affidavit in support of revision has been
sworn by the mother of the deceased
instead of the informant herself. In the
present case, it is to mention that this
revision was filed by Smt. Garima Rani
(mother of the deceased) on behalf of Smt.
Mili Nath who was informant in the present
case and affidavit in support of criminal
revision was sworn by Smt. Garima Rani,
later on power of attorney was executed by
Smt. Mili Nath in favour of Smt. Garima
Rani authorizing her for filing this criminal
revision.

13. In this regard, it is to note that
the aforesaid full Bench decision in the
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi, was
given in a writ petition under article 226 of
the Constitution of India and present
criminal revision is governed with the
provisions as contained under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. as under:-

 397. Calling for records to
exercise powers of revision.

 (1) The High Court or any
Sessions Judge may call for and examine
the record of any proceeding before any
inferior Criminal Court situate within its or
his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior Court, and
may, when calling for such record, direct
that the execution of any sentence or order
be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or
on his own bond pending the examination
of
the
record.Explanation.
-
All
Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial,
and
whether
exercising
original
or
appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to
be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the
purposes of this sub-section and of Section
398.

 (2) The powers of revision
conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial
or other proceeding.

 (3) If an application under this
section has been made by any person either
to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge,
no further application by the same person
shall be entertained by the other of them.

 401. High Court's powers of
revision.

 (1) In the case of any proceeding
the record of which has been called for by
itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its
discretion, exercise any of the powers
conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections
386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of
Session by Section 307 and, when the
Judges composing the Court of revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall
be disposed of in the manner provided by
Section 392.

 (2) No order under this section
shall be made to the prejudice of the
accused or other person unless he has had
an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own
defence.

 (3) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to authorise a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.

 (4) Where under this Code an
appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be
entertained at the instance of the party who
could have appealed.

 (5) Where under this Code an
appeal lies but an application for revision
has been made to the High Court by any
person and the High Court is satisfied that
such application was made under the
erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of
justice so to do, the High Court may treat
the application for revision as a petition of
appeal and deal with the same accordingly.
10 All. Smt. Mili Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
895
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of NADIR KHAN Versus THE
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
(1975) 2 SCC 406 in Para 4 held that it is
wells known and has been ever recognized
that the High Court is not required to act in
revision
merely
through
a
conduit
application at the instance of an aggrieved
party. The High Court, as an effective
instrument for administration of criminal
justice, keeps a constant vigil and wherever
it finds that justice has suffered, it takes
upon itself as its bounden duty to suo motu
act where there is flagrant abuse of the law.

15. In the case of Honnaiah T.H.
Versus State of Karnataka and Others
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1001 it has been
clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the complainant or victim can maintain a
revision
against
orders
affecting
substantive rights. The High Court can
exercise the power of revision under
Section 401 Cr.P.C. suo motu making it
irrelevant who invokes it.

16. The present criminal revision
has been filed under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. by the victim herself though in the
name of the informant Smt. Mili Nath who
had signed the Vakalatnama at the time of
filing of this revision and later on
authorized her by executing power of
attorney in her favour ratifying its filing
also.The affidavit was sworn not by Smt.
Mili Nath, the informant and revisionist but
by Smt. Garima Rani who herself is victim.
This may be a procedural irregularity.
Procedural defects which do not go to the
root of the matter should not be permitted
to defeat a just cause. As far as possible a
substantial right should not be allowed to
be defeated on the technical grounds of
procedural irregularity so as to ensure that
no injustice be done to any party.
17. In view of the law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid cases and the provisions as
contained under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
there appears no any illegality and
irregularity to this Court in exercising its
power to entertain the revision. Hence, this
revision is maintainable and the objection
raised by the learned counsels for the
opposite party no. 2 in this regard is not
acceptable.

18.
The
question
no.
2
is
concerned with discharge of opposite party
no. 2 for the charges under Sections 452,
354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D) I.P.C.

19. Section 227 Cr.P.C. provides
that:-

 "If, upon consideration of record
of the case and the documents submitted
therewith,
and
after
hearing
the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed in case of Sanjai Kumar Rai Vs.
State of U.P. and Another (2022) 15 SCC
720 in para 15 quoted hereinbelow:-
 "further, it is well settled that the
trial court while considering the discharge
application is not to act as a mere post
office. The court has to sift thorough the
evidence in order to find out whether there
are sufficient grounds to try the suspect.
The court has to consider the broad
possibilities, total effect of the evidence and
documents
produced
and
the
basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so
on."
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. In the case of Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat
wherein in Para 23 quoted hereinbelow:-

 "23. At this stage of framing the
charge in accordance with the principles
which have been laid down by this Court,
what the Court is expected to do is, it does
not act as a mere post office. The Court
must indeed sift the material before it. The
material to be sifted would be the material
which is produced and relied upon by the
prosecution. The sifting is not to be
meticulous in the sense that the Court dons
the mantle of the trial Judge hearing
arguments after the entire evidence has
been adduced after a full fledged trial and
the question is not whether the prosecution
has made out the case for the conviction of
the accused. All that is required is, the
Court must be satisfied that with the
materials available, a case is made out for
the accused to stand trial. A strong
suspicion suffices. However, a strong
suspicion must be founded on some
material. The material must be such as can
be translated into evidence at the stage of
trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the
pure subjective satisfaction based on the
moral notions of the Judge that here is a
case where it is possible that the accused
has
committed
the
offence.
Strong
suspicion must be the suspicion which is
premised
on
some
material
which
commends itself to the Court as sufficient to
entertain the prima facie view that the
accused has committed the offence."

22. In the case of Ghulam Hassan
Beigh
Versus
Mohammad
Maqbool
Magrey and others (2022) 12 SCC 657 in
Para 23 quoted hereinbelow:-

 "23. In Sajjan Kumar v. CBI,
this Court had an occasion to consider the
scope of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. The
principles which emerged therefrom have
been taken note of in para 21 as under :

 21. On consideration of the
authorities about the scope of Sections 227
and 288 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:

 (i) The Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or
not a prima facie case against the accused
has been made out. The test to determine
prima case would depend upon the facts of
each case.

 (ii) Where the materials placed
before the Court disclosed grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

 (iii) The Court cannot act merely
as a post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc.
However, at this stage, there cannot be
roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
 (iv) If on the basis of material on
record, the Court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence.
 (v) At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material
10 All. Smt. Mili Nath Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
897
on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the Court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission of the offence by the accused
was possible.

 (vi) At the stage of sections 227
and 228, the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with
a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose
the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be accepted even at the initial stage
to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.

 (vii) If two views are possible and
one of them give rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage, he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal."

23. In the case of Union of India
Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
The Hob'le Apex Court has considered the
scope of enquiry a Judge is required to
make while considering the question of
framing of charges. After an exhaustive
survey of the case law on the point, this
Court, in Para 10 of the judgment, laid
down the following principles:
 "10. (1) That the Judge while
considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Code has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.
 (2) Where the materials placed
before the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

 (3) The test to determine a prima
facie case would naturally depend upon the
facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By
and large however if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving
rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.

 (4)
That
in
exercising
his
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code
the Judge which under the present Code is
a senior and experienced Judge cannot act
merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution, but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and documents
produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities, etc. However, at this stage,
there cannot be roving inquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial."

24. Thus from the aforesaid, it is
evident that the trial court is enjoined with
the duty to apply its mind at the time of
framing of charge and should not act as
mere post office. The endorsement on the
charge sheet present by the police as it is
without applying its mind and without
recording brief reasons in support of its
opinion is not countenanced by law.
However, the material which is required to
be evaluated by the court at the time of
framing of charge should be the material
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is produced and relied upon by the
prosecution. The sifting of such material is
not to be so meticulous as would render the
exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or
otherwise of the accused. All that is
required at this stage is that the court must
be satisfied that the evidence collected by
the prosecution is sufficient to presume that
the accused has committed the offence.
Even a strong suspicion would suffice, on
the contrary if it is mere suspicion it cannot
be sufficient to frame the charge against the
accused. For this purpose the learned trial
court is to examine and sift the material
collected by the prosecution during the
course of investigation but it is not
expected to make a roving inquiry as in
trial.

25. In the present case it is to note
that in the F.I.R., no mention regarding
molestation of the mother of the deceased
was made by the informant.

26.
During
the
course
of
investigation statements of the victim Smt.
Garima Rani, mother of the deceased were
recorded five times.

 (i)
Her first statement
was
recorded by I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
on 01.11.2022 in which she made the
similar
version
before
the
I.O.
as
mentioned in the F.I.R.

 (ii) Her second statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
05.12.2022 in which she stated that her
daughter Anika was being treated in
Pennsylvania
and
her
condition
was
critical.

 (iii) Her third statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
18.12.2022 in which she again told similar
statements about the incident and also
about the course of treatment.

 (iv) Her fourth statement was
recorded on 24.12.2022 in which she made
similar statements regarding the incident
with other facts related to her treatment and
conduct of opposite party no. 2 during the
treatment. In the aforesaid four statements
recorded by I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
the mother of the deceased did not disclose
the fact that she was also molested by the
opposite party no. 2 against her will in her
house and was seen by her child prior to the
alleged incident of burning of child though
this statement was made by her after
reducing it in writing.

 (v) On 22.03.2023 her statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded for
the fifth time in which she repeated that the
statement given by her in the month of
December 2022 was correct and further
stated some other facts which she could not
disclose due to social bounds and prestige
of the family. On account of after-effect of
burning incident of her minor daughter she
came out of those social bounds. She
further added that the opposite party no. 2
committed some obscene activities with her
which were seen by her daughter, the
deceased Anika, on account of which the
opposite party no. 2 has committed her
murder by burning, she added. After fifth
statement, her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was also got recorded before the
learned Magistrate in which she reiterated
the facts regarding commission of obscene
activities of opposite party no. 2 with her to
have seen by the deceased minor child. On
the basis of her fifth statement, the mother
of the deceased Sections 452, 354, 354A(i), 354-A(ii), 354(D) were also added
and after conclusion of investigation charge
sheet was filed before the learned court.
10 All. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. & Ors.
899
27. On perusing the case diary and
the aforesaid statement of Smt. Garima
Rani, it appears that there was no mention
of any allegation regarding molestation by
the opposite party no. 2 in F.I.R. but during
the course of investigation her statements
were recorded four times by the I.O. and
even after interval of time there was no
whisper regarding such charge. Fourth
statement was recorded which she brought
in writing before the I.O., so it can not be
said that it was made in haste and under
any distress but it was willful and
thoughtful. In her fifth statement which was
recorded on 22.03.2023 she made such
statement. Till the recording of fifth
statement she kept mum in this regard. Her
Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded subsequent to her fifth statement.

28. So far as the chatting record is
concerned it contains no any such material
indicating that there was some affair
between opposite party no. 2 and Smt.
Garima. On the basis of chatting record it
cannot be said that she was so molested by
him.
29. In view of the law as
enumerated above for discharge in context
with the statements of the victim in the
present case, the nature of such statements
seems to give rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion and unless it is grave
suspicion, the accused cannot be put to face
the trial for such allegations and the learned
trial court will be right to discharge the
accused.

30. The learned trial court while
passing the order on discharge application
dated 17.05.2024 has considered all these
facts and the material on record collected
during the course of investigation and
recorded its finding while discharging the
opposite party no. 2 for the offence under
Section 452, 354, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii),
354(D) I.P.C. and directing him to be tried
under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. for
murder of the deceased child by burning in
his house and for hiding and destroying the
evidence. There appears no any illegality or
impropriety in the order passed by the
learned trial court in discharging the
opposite party no. 2 for the offences as
aforesaid but this criminal revision being
devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

31. Accordingly, this criminal
revision is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 899
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1523 of 2019

Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Amit Kumar Sinha, Atul Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vijay Prakash Mishra, Vijai Prakash Misra

Issue for Consideration
Whether
the
claimants
were
entitled
to
enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, particularly with
regard to
(i) assessment of monthly income of the
deceased, who was a professional driver, in
absence of documentary proof; and
(ii)
quantum
of
compensation
under
conventional heads, in light of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court.