Durga Prasad State of U.P. and Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prakash Tripathi, Ram Surat Patel, Sushil Counsel
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1764 of 2020 Durga Prasad State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prakash Tripathi, Ram Surat Patel, Sushil Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Kumar, Vivek Tripathi : G.A., Siddharth Niranjan Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
Legal Reasoning
that more than, prima facie, case is made out against opposite party nos. 2 to 5. He next submitted that therefore, order dated 27.1.2020 is illegal and is liable to set aside and opposite party nos. 2 to 5 should be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 and impugned order dated 27.1.2020 is is a well-reasoned order and no interference of this Court is required. 10. They further submitted that however, from the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 recorded before the trial court it reflects, they tried to implicate the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but even from their statements, it could not be reflected that applicant were responsible for suicide committed by the deceased and there is not even, prima facie, evidence against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of which they could be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. and therefore, by rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. court concerned did not commit any illegality. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. Record of the case suggests that deceased of the case committed suicide and however, in the FIR opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were also made accused but during investigation, their involvement were found false and therefore, no charge sheet was filed against them. 13. Record further suggests that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are in laws of the deceased while opposite party nos. 3 and 4 were her brother in law and sister in law i.e. Jeth and Jethani, respectively. 14. From the record, it also reflects that during trial revisionist has been examined as PW 1 while Puran Singh, cousin brother of the deceased has been examined as PW-2 and Krishna @ Shiv Singh the brother in law (Jija) of the deceased was examined as PW-3 and after their statements prosecution moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but by the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 trial court dismissed the application. 15. From the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 it reflects that in view of the trial court from the statements of the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 no, prima facie, case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is made out and therefore, trial court did not summon them under section 319 Cr.P. and dismissed the application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. 3 CRLR No. 1764 of 2020 16. The power of the trial court to summon an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional power it should be exercised sparingly in appropriate cases. 17. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others MANU/SC/0025/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 categorically observed that for summoning additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. merely prima facie, case is not sufficient and for summoning under section 319 Cr.P.C. more than, prima facie, case should be made out. 18. From the statements of the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 recorded before the trial court which have been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant revision it reflects that even as per these witnesses husband of the deceased i.e. co-accused Shailendra was having illicit relationship with some lady and only due to this reason she committed suicide. From their statement it could not be even, prima facie, reflected that deceased committed suicide due to the abatement of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 who were though relatives of the co-accused Shailendra, the husband of deceased, therefore, in view of this Court, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has rightly been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 27.1.2020. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, the instant revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 8, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 27.1.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun, at Orai, in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2019 arising out of case crime No. 181 of 2019 under section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.1.2020 by which trial court dismissed the application of the prosecution to summon opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 under section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. He further submitted that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are in-laws of the deceased and opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are jeth and jethani of the deceased. 5. He further submitted that although private opposite parties were named in the FIR but during investigation, Investigating Officer wrongly exonerated them. He further submitted that when during trial revisionist was examined by the trial court as PW-1 then he in his statement recorded before the trial court, categorically stated that due to the torture of private opposite parties, deceased committed suicide. 6. He further submitted that even from the statements of the PW 2 and PW 3 cousin brother and brother in law (Jija), respectively of the deceased, it is apparent that due to the bad behavior and abetement of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, deceased died. 7. He further submitted that court concerned failed to properly appreciate the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 and wrongly dismissed the application moved under section 2 CRLR No. 1764 of 2020 319 Cr.P.C. 8. He further submitted that from the statement of the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 which have been annexed alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 11.1.2022, it is apparent