Revisional interference with discharge is limited where inconsistent allegations and unreliable electronic evidence fail to show grave suspicion.

Revisional interference with a discharge order is confined to legality, propriety and correctness, and at the stage of charge the record must disclose only a prima facie case and grave suspicion, not proof after a roving inquiry. Here, the discharge was upheld because the complainant's version contained significant improvements and inconsistencies, the medical material did not clearly support the alleged injuries, no reliable corroboration was shown before the Magistrate, and the CCTV footage was not properly proved under the rules for electronic evidence. The Court found no perversity in the Sessions Court's view that the material was insufficient to proceed against the accused officers, and did not separately decide the sanction issue once the merits failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned discharge order warranted interference in revision and whether the material on record disclosed grave suspicion sufficient to sustain the charges, including in relation to sanction and the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage and medical material.

Analysis: The scope of revisional interference was confined to legality, propriety and correctness, and the Court reiterated that at the stage of charge the material is to be tested only for a prima facie case and grave suspicion, without conducting a roving inquiry. On the facts, the allegations were found to be materially weakened by significant improvements and inconsistencies in the complainant's version, uncertainty regarding the injuries reflected in the medical documents, absence of reliable corroboration before the Magistrate, and the failure to establish the CCTV footage through the requirements governing electronic evidence. The Court also found no perversity in the Sessions Court's view that the record did not justify proceeding against the accused officers, and considered it unnecessary to decide the sanction issue separately once the case on merits failed.

Conclusion: The discharge of the accused was upheld and no ground for revisional interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The complaint-based prosecution was not restored, and the revisional challenge to the discharge order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, interference in revision is unwarranted unless the record discloses grave suspicion supported by reliable material; where the complainant's case is materially inconsistent and the corroborative evidence is inadmissible or unreliable, discharge is justified.

---