# Surendra Sharma Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 891 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-08 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-sharma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44223 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Para 1: The revisionist challenges the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the ACJM, Meerut, which rejected his discharge application in a case involving Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the I.P.C. Para 2: The Court heard arguments from the counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. (Additional Government Advocate). Para 3: The prosecution alleges the revisionist forged a letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court directing the arrest of certain accused persons. Verification with the Supreme Court confirmed the letter was fake and fabricated. Para 4: The revisionist argued for discharge on the grounds of a discrepancy between the F.I.R. (stating the FAX was sent to the C.J.M.) and the letter (addressed to the District Judge), claiming no offence was made out. Para 5: The A.G.A. opposed the revision, pointing out that the lower court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the revisionist to proceed with the trial. Para 6: The Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; a "reasonable doubt" or prima facie suspicion is sufficient to proceed. Para 7: The Court outlined the settled legal position where a judge may discharge an accused: insufficient evidence, no legal ground to proceed, prosecution barred by limitation, or precluded by a prior High Court judgment. 892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 8: Citing Kanti Bhadra Shah, the Court noted that while a discharge order must contain detailed reasons, an order framing a charge is not necessarily quashed for lacking them. Para 9: Citing Sudarshan Khakkar and Rukmani Narvekar, the Court emphasized that at this stage, the court must focus only on the prosecution's documents (Section 173 Cr.P.C.) and not the accused's probable defense. Para 10: Citing Sanghi Brothers, the Court reiterated that even a "strong suspicion" regarding the commission of an offence is enough to frame a charge. Para 11-12: The Court concluded that the revision lacks merit given the detailed evidence discussed by the lower court and the established legal principles. The revision was dismissed at the admission stage. List of Citations Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522 State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Khakkar, AIR 1995 SC 1954 Rukmani Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013 Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V. Sanjay Choudhary and others, 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87 ## Text 7 All. Surendra Sharma Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 891 20. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant legal provisions, there does not appear any merit in the transfer application, which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. ----------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1521 Of 2016 Surendra Sharma ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Shri Amit Daga Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Held - Para 1: The revisionist challenges the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the ACJM, Meerut, which rejected his discharge application in a case involving Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the I.P.C. Para 2: The Court heard arguments from the counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. (Additional Government Advocate). Para 3: The prosecution alleges the revisionist forged a letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court directing the arrest of certain accused persons. Verification with the Supreme Court confirmed the letter was fake and fabricated. Para 4: The revisionist argued for discharge on the grounds of a discrepancy between the F.I.R. (stating the FAX was sent to the C.J.M.) and the letter (addressed to the District Judge), claiming no offence was made out. Para 5: The A.G.A. opposed the revision, pointing out that the lower court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the revisionist to proceed with the trial. Para 6: The Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; a "reasonable doubt" or prima facie suspicion is sufficient to proceed. Para 7: The Court outlined the settled legal position where a judge may discharge an accused: insufficient evidence, no legal ground to proceed, prosecution barred by limitation, or precluded by a prior High Court judgment. 892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 8: Citing Kanti Bhadra Shah, the Court noted that while a discharge order must contain detailed reasons, an order framing a charge is not necessarily quashed for lacking them. Para 9: Citing Sudarshan Khakkar and Rukmani Narvekar, the Court emphasized that at this stage, the court must focus only on the prosecution's documents (Section 173 Cr.P.C.) and not the accused's probable defense. Para 10: Citing Sanghi Brothers, the Court reiterated that even a "strong suspicion" regarding the commission of an offence is enough to frame a charge. Para 11-12: The Court concluded that the revision lacks merit given the detailed evidence discussed by the lower court and the established legal principles. The revision was dismissed at the admission stage. List of Citations Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal, AIR 2000 SC 522 State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Khakkar, AIR 1995 SC 1954 Rukmani Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013 Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V. Sanjay Choudhary and others, 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4th, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 244 of 2015, State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Kumar Sharma, arising out of Case Crime No. 597 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. 3. The allegation against the accused revisionist is that he forged a letter in the name of Registrar, Hon'ble Supreme Court, directing the District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to arrest the accused persons involved in a Criminal Case U/s 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D. P. Act and sent it to District Judge, Ghaziabad, by FAX. To verify the truthfulness of the letter, when correspondence was made from the Registrar of Supreme Court, it was revealed that the letter was fake and fabricated.The copy of the letter is available on record. 4. The revisionist has assailed it on the ground that this letter is addressed to District and Sessions Judge, whereas in the FIR it has been alleged that FAX was sent to C.J.M., Ghaziabad. It has been further contended that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionist under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 01.03.2016, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to the observations of court below in order dated 01.03.2016, wherein it has 7 All. Surendra Sharma Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 893 been clearly mentioned that sufficient prima facie evidence is available against the revisionist. The submission of learned AGA is that the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionist, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The impugned order shows that the court below has elaborately discussed in it the prima facie evidence available on record. At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges. So far as the instant case is concerned, there appears sufficient primafacie evidence to frame charges against the revisionist and only the basis of the fact that the letter addressed to District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, was faxed to C.J.M., Ghaziabad, it cannot be said that there was no prima-facie evidence againt the revisionist. 7. As per settled legal position the Sessions Judge has the power to discharge the accused in the following circumstances; A-where the evidence produced is not sufficient, B- where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused, C-where the proseuction is clearly barred by limitation, or D-where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of High Court. 8. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of Bengal AIR 2000 SC 522, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the discharge order must contain reasons but an order of framing charge cannot be quashed merely because it does not contain reasons. 9. In State of J & K vs. Sudarshan Khakkar AIR 1995 SC 1954 and in Rukmani Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2009 SC 1013, it has been held that no weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused and at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to confine its attention to documents referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only. 10. In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V. Sanjay Choudhary and others; 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 87, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. 11. In wake of the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the prima facie evidence available on record, which has been discussed in 894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES detail by the court below, the revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 12. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ------------ REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1574 Of 2016 Ganga Prasad & Ors. ...Revisionists Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionists: Shri Bipin Pal Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Held - Para 1: The revisionists seek to set aside a summoning order dated 09.05.2013 (pertaining to a 2015 case) issued by the Additional Session Judge, Pilibhit. They were summoned via Section 319 Cr.P.C. for offences including kidnapping (363, 366), rape (376), criminal intimidation (504, 506), and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act. Para 2: The Court heard the counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. and reviewed the case record. Para 3: The revisionists argued they were falsely implicated by the complainant to harass the main accused's father and brothers. They pointed out that the police originally did not charge-sheet them and that the victim's trial statement contained no allegations of rape or sexual harassment against them. Para 4: It was further argued that the medical evidence (P.W. 4) placed the victim's age between 17 to 19 years, and there was no evidence satisfying the specific criteria for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. Para 5: The A.G.A. opposed the revision but admitted there was no specific material linking the revisionists to the charges of rape or POCSO violations. Para 6-7: The Court noted that the victim made no allegations of rape against the revisionists in either her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement or her trial testimony.