Ashok Bhati vs State Of U.P. And Another

Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No. 1044 of 2025, titled State Vs. Ashok Bhati, arising out of Case Crime No.294 of 2024, under Sections 333, 74, 75(1), 76, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., whereby his application seeking discharge has been dismissed and the impugned order dated 13.1.2026 framing charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the alleged incident of causing injuries and molesting her, whereas no such incident had taken place. Learned counsel submits that as there is a dispute of money with the complainant, who has not returned the borrowed money to the petitioner, therefore, in order to pressurize the petitioner, she lodged the above case on false accusations. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of prosecution witness Bijendra to contend that this prosecution witness in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. clearly stated that the petitioner had not molested the victim and further, the F.I.R. does not reveal the date of occurrence, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharge and framing the charges against the petitioner is bad in law. He prays that the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 be set aside and the petitioner be discharged. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering his submissions, this Court finds that F.I.R. was lodged on 6.7.2024 and it is clearly mentioned in the opening part that the incident had taken place in the morning, therefore, the stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that no date of occurrence is mentioned in the F.I.R. is apparently misplaced. Further, a reading of the statement of Bijendra recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. also contains the allegations of beatings resulting in injuries to the complainant and the prosecution has relied upon the medical report of the injured as well. That apart, it is also not disputed by learned counsel that the petitioner had gone to the house of the complainant on the day of occurrence to demand the money advanced by him to the complainant. Thus, considering the above background, particularly the fact that the prosecution case relates to the offences against human body and the grounds setup for discharge by the petitioner are not tenable, as at the stage of framing of charges only a prima facie case is to be seen. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the record of the case while refusing to discharge the accused-petitioner and proceeding with the trial against him. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No other argument has been raised. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) May 7, 2026 P.S.Parihar