Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187058 Reserved On : 16.09.2025 Delivered On : 17.10.2025 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2520 of 2024 Revisionist :- Kuldeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2344 of 2024 Revisionist :- Kuldeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd Raghib Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Pal Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been filed by revisionists challenging the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 1657 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby, the discharge application filed by revisionists in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. Criminal Revision No. 2520 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been filed by revisionists challenging the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 1657 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby, Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. has framed charges against revisionists.
3. I have heard Mr. Saghir Ahmad, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd Raghib Ali, the learned counsel for revisionist in both the criminal revisions, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Rai, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.
4. Perused the record.
5. It transpires from record that marriage of Smt. Shalu was solemnized with revisionist-1 Kuldeeep Kumar on 18.02.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, during the subsistence of marriage an incident took place on 03.02.2023 at the parental home of Smt. Shalu. Accordingly, Shalu was taken to Siddharth Polyclinic and Nursing Home, Hastinapur Road Mawana (Meerut) for medical treatment. However, the Doctor at aforesaid hospital referred the patient for higher management. Accordingly, Anuj Kumar brother of the victim shifted the victim to Nagar Hospital Meerut, where she was admitteed on 03.02.2023 and ultimately discharged on 04.02.2023. Again the victim was admitted by her (Tau) Brij Mohan at Neutema Hospital Meerut on 04.02.2023 but she ultimately succumbed to death on 04.02.2023 itself, which undergoing treatment at aforesaid hospital.
6. The information regarding death of deceased was given by the staff of Neutema Hospital at the concerned police station. Accordingly inquest of the cadaver of deceased was conducted on 04.02.2023. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), no definite opinion could be formed as to whether the death of deceased is homicidal or suicidal.
7. After the inquest (Panchnama) of the deceased had been conducted. First informant opposite party-2 Ritik Kumar lodged an FIR dated 04.02.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No. 0009 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar. In the aforesaid FIR, three persons namely (1) Kuldeep (2) Ashok and (3) Shimla were nominated as named accused.
8. Subsequent to aforementioned FIR, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 05.02.2023. The autopsy surgeon who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased did not find any external ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased. As such, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. Accordingly, the viscera was preserved and sent to FSL Laboratory for chemical visceral analysis. In view of above, the autopsy surgeon concluded that cause of death shall be given after receipt of the visceral report.
9. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, the FSL report dated 16.06.2023 was received. As per the FSL report, a foreign chemical compound namely Organo-coloro insectifide was found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical analysis.
10. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation including the statements of various witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established against two of the named accused. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet/police report. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 06.06.2023 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby, two of the named accused i.e. Kuldeep and Ashok were charge sheeted under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.
11. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional Magistrate in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C. supplied the documents forming part of the case diary and relied upon by the prosecution to the charge sheeted accused. As offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 1657 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok and others) came to be registered and is now pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/FTC-2, Muzaffarnagar.
12. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He summoned the charge sheeted accused.
13. At this juncture, the charge sheeted accused filed an application dated 08.05.2024 in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge in above-mentioned Sessions Trial.
14. The discharge application filed by accused revisionists was opposed by the prosecution. However, no written objections were filed in opposition to the same.
15. Ultimately, Court below upon evaluation and examination of the grounds urged in the discharge application and in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 1783 came to be conclusion that at this stage Court is not required to conduct a mini trial nor it can go into the probative value of the material on record. Since prima facie a case for trial of accused (revisionists) is made out, therefore, no good ground exists to discharge them. Accordingly, Court below vide order dated 29.03.2024 rejected the discharge application filed by revisionists.
16. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar, accused revisionists approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Since no interim order was granted by this Court in aforementioned criminal revision, therefore, Court below proceeded with the trial. Accordingly, concerned Sessions Judge by means of an order dated 08.05.2024 (passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar) framed charges against accused-revisionists, under Sections 498A read with Section 34 IPC, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections Dowry Prohibition Act.
17. Thus, feeling aggrieved by above-mentioned order dated 08.05.2024 the revisionists again approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 2520 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
18. Criminal Revision No. 2520 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) came up for admission on 21.05.2024 and this Court passed the following order;-
1. Heard Mr. Sagir Ahmad, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Raghib Ali, the learned counsel for revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. At the very outset, Mr. Sagir Ahmad, the learned Senior Counsel for revisionists submits that against the order, rejecting the discharge application filed by the accused, Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been filed and is pending before this Court. He, therefore, contends that aforementioned criminal revision be heard along with present criminal revision.
4. Prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel for revisionists is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
5. Accordingly, it is allowed.
6. In view of above, connect Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) along with this criminal revision.
7. Matter shall re-appear as fresh on 28.05.2024 along with connected matter.
19. As a consequence of above, both the revisions referred to above have now come up together for admission before this Court.
20. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has raised a preliminary objection by contending that since charges have already been framed against accused-revisionists by Court below vide framing of charge order dated 08.05.2024, therefore, the question of discharge has now become academic. As such, Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) filed by accused revisionists challenging the veracity of the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by revisionists has now been rendered infructuous for all practical purposes. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed. To buttress his submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1979 (2) SCC 179 and has relied upon paragraphs 27 and 28 of the aforementioned report. For ready reference, the same are reproduced herein below;-
27. From the scheme of the provisions noticed above it is clear that in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, discharge or acquittal of accused are distinct concepts applicable to different stages of the proceedings in Court. The legal effect and incidents of discharge and acquittal are also different. An order of discharge in a warrant case instituted on complaint, can be made only after the process has been issued and before the charge is framed. Section 253(1) shows that as a general rule there can be no order of discharge unless the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses has been taken and the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded, in the light of the evidence, that no case has been made out. Sub-section (2) which authorises the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless, is an exception to that rule. A discharge without considering the evidence taken is illegal. If a prima facie case is made out the Magistrate must proceed under Section 254 and frame charge against the accused. Section 254 shows that a charge can be framed if after taking evidence or at any previous stage, the Magistrate, thinks that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable as a warrant case.
28. Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of the charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Sections 254 to 258 to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, and thereafter, he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Section 349 and 562 of the Code of 1898 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973).
21. It was thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in view above, the veracity of the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by revisionists cannot be examined as charges have now been framed against revisionists. As such, Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024 (Kuldeep Kumar And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
22. Mr. Amit Kumar Rai, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 has also adopted the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A.
23. Contradicting the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. Mr. Sagir Ahmad, the learned Senior Counsel for revisionists invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi and another) 2012 (3) SCC 614. wherein, Court has observed that the veracity of proceeding pending against an accused before Court below can more appropriately be examined after the charges have been framed. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon paragraphs 13, 14, and 19 of the aforementioned judgment. The same read as under:-
13. Though a criminal complaint lodged before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a b proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of court. An early discussion of the law in this regard can be found in the decision of this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561-A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, 1973) had been laid down in the c following terms: (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding c.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognised to be inherent in every High Court.
The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be g exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfy the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if thr warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the also at power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually come on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in their entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.
19. The view expressed by this Court in Century Spg. cases and in L Muniswamy case to the effect that the framing of a charge against an accused substantially affects the person's liberty would require a reiteration at this stage. The apparent and close proximity between the framing of a charge in a criminal proceeding and the paramount rights of a person arrayed as an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution can be ignored only with peril. Any examination of the validity of a criminal charge framed against an accused cannot overlook the fundamental requirement laid down in the decisions rendered in Century Spg.5 and Muniswamy. It is from the aforesaid perspective that we must proceed in the matter bearing in mind the cardinal principles of law that have developed over the years as fundamental to any examination of the issue as to whether the charges framed are justified or not.
24. He, therefore, contends that in view of aforementioned categorical pronouncement of Supreme Court, the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is wholly misconceived. As such, the same is liable to be rejected by this Court.
25. Having heard, the learned Senior counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that in view of aforementioned clear and categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the correctness of the proceedings can more appropriately be decided after the charges have been framed, there is no room to accept the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to aforementioned Criminal Revision No. 2344 of 2024. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is hereby rejected.
26. Mr. Sagir Ahmad, the learned Senior counsel for revisionists in challenge to the order impugned in present criminal revisions submits as follows:-
(i) The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Kuldeep Kumar on 18.02.2022.
(ii) The deceased had gone to her parental house and was residing there much prior to her death. As such, the death of deceased has taken place not at her matrimonial home but at her parental house.
(iii) It has come in evidence that a disclosure was made that on account of demand of dowry the victim had consumed poison which information is alleged to have been disclosed by the victim herself before her death. However, no such disclosure was made when the victim was admitted at Siddharth Polyclinic and Nursing Home, Hastinapur Road Mawana (Meerut) nor at Nagar Hospital Meerut as well as Neutema Hospital Meerut. As such, subsequently a false story has been cooked up against revisionists regarding demand of dowry.
(iv) The only clinching evidence which is alleged to have emerged against revisionists is a whatsapp call alleged to have been made on the mobile phone of the deceased i.e. Mob. No. 7819918505 from Mob. No. 9536717355. However, the Investigating Officer has neither recovered the mobile phone of the deceased nor has he collected any CDR report of the mobile phone of the deceased. As per the material collected by Investigating Officer there is no evidence regarding immediate demand of dowry by the accused.
(v) Court below has rejected the discharge application filed by accused revisionists without adverting to the papers accompanying the police report which was otherwise mandatorily required.
27. Since the order passed on the discharge application by Court below is itself unsustainable in law, therefore, in case, this Court finds that the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application is liable to be set aside then by reason of same the framing of charge order, being a consequential order will have to be set aside so that complete justice is done to the revisionists. In support of above submission regarding quashing of consequential order , the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments of Supreme Court;-
(i). Badrinath Vs. State of Tamilnadu and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3243,
(ii). State of Kerala Vs. Puthenkavu NSS Karayogam and Another, (2001) 10 SCC 191,
(iii). Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by LRS Vs. Narvedshwar Mishra (Dead) by LRS and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 422,
28. On the edifice of aforementioned submissions, the learned Senior counsel for revisionists thus contended that the order impugned dated 29.03.2024 passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by revisionists is manifestly illegal. Since there is no evidence against the accused so as to even form an opinion regarding complicity of accused/revisionists in the alleged crime in question, therefore, prima facie present case is a case of no evidence against accused/revisionists. As such, the order impugned dated 29.03.2024 is unsustainable in law and fact and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
29. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revisions. They submit that while considering the discharge application of an accused the Court is only required to consider the following three issues:-
(i) As per the material on record, offence complained of is prima facie made out.
(ii) There is evidence against accused in the papers accompanying the police report.
(iii) Trial of an accused can be sustained on the ground of grave suspicion.
(iv) In the present case it cannot be said that none of the aforementioned contingencies are in existence. As such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned dated 29.03.2024, rejecting the discharge application filed by accused/revisionists was rejected.
30. It was then contended that as to what charges can be framed against revisionist can more properly be agitated at the time of framing of charge order Section 228 Cr.P.C. No such objection was raised before Court below as there is nothing in the order dated 08.05.2024 i.e. framing of charge order passed by Court below to show that objections were raised to the effect that no offence under any of the charging sections is made out against accused/revisionists as per the papers accompanying the police report. Once charges have been framed, the accused/revisionists cannot be discharged from the same under any circumstance. It was thus urged that a futile exercise has been undertaken by revisionists only to delay the trial. The proper course for the revisionists is to appear before Court below and stand their trial in respect of the charges framed against them.
31. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the question that is first required to be answered by this Court is as to whether the discharge application filed by revisionists before Court below has not been considered and decided by Court below in accordance with law or not.
32. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2022) 15 SCC 720 has clearly held that while deciding the discharge application, the Court is not an act as a post-office but has to consider the papers accompanying the police report and then arrived at a conclusion that as per the said papers accompanying the police report, the offence complained of is made out or whether there is evidence to sustain the charge alleged against an accused. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the aforesaid report is relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein below;-
14. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] , thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are, therefore, not affected by the bar of Section 397(2)CrPC. That apart, this Court in the abovecited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law.
15. 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 through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] ]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be.
33. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Court below will go to show that Court below has simply noted the submissions urged on behalf of accused/revisionists, the objections raised by the prosecution to the judgment of this Court and has thereafter, recorded an abrupt conclusion, which is manifest in paragraph 10 of the impugned order dated 29.03.2024. For ready reference, paragraph 10 of the impugned order dated 29.03.2024 is reproduced herein-below:-
" After considering the relevant material on record, this Court is of the view that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not supposed to conduct a mini trial and it cannot go into probative value of the material on record and only a prima facie view has to be taken. That thus, in view of the above discussion, section 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act have rightly been added and no case is made out for discharge of the accused and the application for the discharge is accordingly dismissed. Arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for the accused do not absolve accused persons Kuldeep Kumar and Ashok Kumar at this pre-charge sheet. "
34. It is thus apparent that Court below has not delved into the papers accompanying the police report to find out as to whether the revisionists are liable to be prosecuted under the charging sections mentioned in the charge sheet, whether as per the material on record the offence complained of is prima facie made out against accused revisionists or not. Since, the procedure adopted by Court below in deciding the discharge application filed by accused revisionists is not in conformity with the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai (Supra), therefore, Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. As such, the order passed by Court below rejecting the discharge application filed by revisionist cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
35. In view of the discussion made above, these criminal revisions succeed and are liable to be allowed.
36. They are, accordingly, allowed.
37. The order impugned dated 29.03.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 1657 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar, shall stand set aside and Court below shall pass a fresh order on the discharge application filed by revisionists.
38. Since the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-2 Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 1657 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar is a consequential order, therefore, in view of settled law that if the parent order cannot be sustained, the consequential order is also liable to be set aside as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, the framing of charge order dated 08.05.2024 is also liable to be set aside.
39. The consequential order 08.05.2024 passed by Court below framing charges against revisionist is also , hereby, set aside.
40. The necessary exercise shall be undertaken by Court below within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 17.10.2025 Vinay