Ajay Kumar Tiwari @ Ajju Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1146 of 2023 Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari @ Ajju Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vimal Shukla,Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶2This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated

15.07.2023 passed in S.T. No. 42 of 2023, (State Vs. Santosh Tiwari & Ors.) arising out of F.I.R. No. 129 of 2012, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 364 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya.

¶3Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists have been implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in mechanical manner. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the medico legal report as well as the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the court below has wrongly rejected the application for discharge.

¶4Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the revisionists and submits that defence cannot be considered at the time of deciding the discharge application. It is further submitted that the court below has rightly rejected the application for discharge after evaluating the evidence collected by the Investigating OfÏcer as well as the statement of the victim and his medico legal report.

¶5Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the revision, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, admittedly, the defence of the revisionist cannot be considered at the time of deciding the discharge application. It is also evident that the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application after considering the evidences collected by the Investigating OfÏcer.

¶6In view of above facts and discussions, the revision is devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 VKS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench