Revisionist(s) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and on 21 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now repealed) akin to Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 the revisionist has impeached the order dated 04.10.2025, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/FTC-III, Raebareli (State Vs. Praveen Tripathi and others), under Sections 147, 323, 149, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Sareni, District - Raebareli.

3. Vide order under challenge the trial court has rejected the application preferred by the revisionist in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist/prosecution prayed before the trial court to summon Laxmishanker Shahu S/o Bageshwar, Nitin Shahu S/o

Kamlesh, Smt. Pinki W/o Umesh, Shailesh Shahu S/o Kamlesh Shahu to face trial. 2 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025

4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that an F.I.R. was lodged from the side of opposite party/private opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 namely Laxmi Shanker Shahu son of Bhageshwar, Nitin Sahu S/o Kamlesh Sahu, Smt. Pinki Devi W/o Nitin Sahu and Shailesh Sahu S/o Kamlesh Sahu, registered as Case Crime No.384/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. at Police Station- Sareni, District- Raebareli.

5. On being asked as to against whom the FIR No.384/2020 was lodged Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate, who argued the case before this Court, has stated that the F.I.R. was lodged against revisionist Ram Shankar Patwa (present revisionist), Smt. Satyabhama (wife of the revisionist) and Umesh as also against Sudhir, Km. Anita, sons and daughters of the revisionist, respectively.

6. After aforesaid, the revisionist filed a complaint case for the purposes of summoning the accused named in the complaint including the opposite parties, as mentioned herein above.

7. The revisionist himself as also his wife Smt. Satyabhama appeared before the concerned Magistrate.

8. The statement of the revisionist made before the concerned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein under :- "मैने 'सशपथ' बयान कि(cid:14)या कि(cid:14)ः दि(cid:17)० 7.11.2020 (cid:14)ो सुबह राजनारायण , निनकि(cid:14)ता पत्नी शिशवम 9 बजे ्ቚवीन पु्ቔ राजनारायण , (cid:14)मलेश , शिशवम पु्ቔ , मधू पत्नी ्ቚवीण ( पडोसी ) जमीनी विववा(cid:17) (cid:14)ो ले(cid:14)र गाली गलौज (cid:17)ेने लगे। मैने भी जबाब में गाली (cid:17)ी। (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान मे घुस(cid:14)र ्ቚनितप्ቌी ने मारपीट , , सुधीर और पत्नी सत्यभामा (cid:14)ो गंभीर चोटे आईं (cid:14)ी। बीच बचाव में मेरे लड(cid:14)े उमेश जिजस(cid:14)ी डाक्टरी प्ቔावली पर संलग्न है। निननितन भाई ्ቚवीण पु्ቔ (cid:14)मलेश, विपं(cid:14)ी पत्नी निननितन, शैलेश भी ्ቚनितप्ቌी (cid:14)े साथ थे। थाने मे मेरी (cid:14)ोई सुनवायी नही हुई। मै, रामशं(cid:14)र पत्नी सत्यभामा अनीता (पु्ቔी), सुधीर (पु्ቔ) उमेश (पु्ቔ) (cid:14)ा पुशिलस द्वारा चालान (cid:14)र(cid:14)े ए(cid:14) महीने (cid:14)े शिलये जेल भेज दि(cid:17)या। मेरी (cid:14)ोई सुनवायी पुशिलस अधी्ቌ(cid:14) (cid:14)े यहां भी नही हुई। मुझे और (cid:14)ुछ नही (cid:14)हना है।"

9. Statement of Satyabhama recorded in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein under :- "सा्ቌी ्ቦीमती सत्यभामा उ्቞ 51 व्ቧC पत्नी रामशं(cid:14)र निनवासी ्ቇाम बेनी माधवगंज समय लगभग थाना सरेनी जिजला रायबरेली सशपथ बयान कि(cid:14)या कि(cid:14) घटना दि(cid:17)नां(cid:14) (cid:14)ो 9 बजे दि(cid:17)न (cid:14)ी है शिशवम ቔኌ्ቔपाठी ्ቦीमती निनकि(cid:14)ता लቌኚमीशं(cid:14)र साहू ्ቦीमती विपं(cid:14)ी (cid:17)ेवी शैलेश साहू ्ቚवीण ቔኌ्ቔपाठी ्ቦीमती मधु (cid:14)मलेश साहू निननितन साहू

7.11.2020 3 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025 लाठी डण्डा ले(cid:14)र जमीन (cid:14)े रंजिजशन मेरे पनित रामशं(cid:14)र पटवा (cid:14)ी (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान पर चढ आये और मां बहन (cid:14)ी गन्(cid:17)ी गन्(cid:17)ी गाशिलयां (cid:17)ेने लगे मेरे लड(cid:14)े उमेश व सुधीर ने गाली (cid:17)ेने से मना कि(cid:14)या तो सभी ्ቚनितप्ቌीगण जान से मारने (cid:14)ी निनयत से मेरे पनित (cid:14)े (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान (cid:14)े अन्(cid:17)र घुस गये और लाठी डण्डा इंटा पत्थर लात घूंसो से मारपीट शुरू (cid:14)र दि(cid:17)ये जब मैने व मेरी बेटी अनीता ने (cid:14)मरे मे बचाव (cid:14)रने (cid:14)ी (cid:14)ोशिशश (cid:14)ी तो सभी मुजिNजमानो ने मुझे व मेरी बेटी (cid:14)ो भी मारा मां बहन (cid:14)ी गन्(cid:17)ी गन्(cid:17)ी गाशिलया व जान से मारने (cid:14)ी धम(cid:14)ी (cid:17)ी तथा (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान में रखे समान भी तहस नहस (cid:14)र दि(cid:17)या जिजससे (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान (cid:14)ा घटना (cid:14)े बा(cid:17) मेरे पनित ने रिरपोटC शिलख(cid:14)र (cid:17)ी परन्तु 50000 रूपये (cid:14)ा नु(cid:14)सान भी हुआ। उस(cid:14)ी रिरपोटC पुशिलस वालों ने मन माने तरी(cid:14)े से रिरपोटC (cid:17)जC (cid:14)ी और मेरा व मेरी पु्ቔी (cid:14)ी डाक्टरी मुआयना पुशिलस द्वारा सर(cid:14)ारी अस्पताल सरेनी से (cid:14)राया गया पुशिलस वालों ने ्ቚनितप्ቌी गणो से साठ गाठ (cid:14)र मेरे व मेरे पनित रामशं(cid:14)र पटवा व बेटे सुधीर उमेश एवं बेटी अनीता (cid:14)ा गंभीर धाराओ (cid:14)ा चालान (cid:14)र दि(cid:17)या बयान मेरे बोलने पर रीडर द्वारा शिलख गया। ह०अप० एसीजेएम ।।। 30.10.2021 बयान सुन(cid:14)र तस्(cid:17)ी(cid:14) कि(cid:14)या।"

10. In Paragraph- 1 of the complaint on record the revisonist indicated names of persons who were present on the date of incident i.e. on 07.11.2020 including the persons who have already been summoned by the Magistrate.

11. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid indicates, which includes the above quoted portion of the statement, it appears that in fact the allegations were leveled only against the accused Praveen S/o Rajnarayan, Madhu W/o Praveen, Shivam S/o Rajnarayan, Nikita W/o Shivam and Kamlesh (neighbour).

12. Aforesaid is for the following reason(s) :- (i) Ram Shanker, present revisionist, clearly indicated the names of the aforesaid persons and the place of incident and further, according to his statement the private opposite parties except Laxmishanker were only present at the place of alleged crime. (ii) Satyabhama indicated the names of all the persons whose names find place in the complaint case. Thus, Satyabhama improved the story indicated by Ram Shanker. (iii) In the written report dated 07.11.2020, the basis of NCR under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., the revisionist-Ram Shanker had leveled allegations only against Praveen, Smt. Madhu, Shivam and Smt. Nikita. (iv) For the reasons aforesaid the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli (in short "Magistrate") summoned Praveen Tripathi, Smt. Madhu, Shivam Tripathi, Smt. Nikita and Kamlesh to face 4 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025 trial for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. vide order dated 07.01.2021.

13. Before the trial court, the present revisionist as also Smt. Satyabhama, who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2, have leveled allegations against the opposite parties.

14. Based upon the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred which has been rejected by the impugned order. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.10.2025, is extracted herein under :- "प्ቔावली (cid:14)े अवलो(cid:14)न से स्पष्ट है कि(cid:14) परिरवा(cid:17)ी रामशं(cid:14)र पटवा द्वारा विवप्ቌीगण ्ቚवीण ቔኌ्ቔपाठी ्ቦीमती मधू, शिशवम ቔኌ्ቔपाठी, ्ቦीमती निनकि(cid:14)ता, लቌኚमीशं(cid:14)र शाहू, (cid:14)मलेश शाहू, निननितन शाहू, ्ቦीमती विपन्(cid:14)ी(cid:17)ेवी व शैलेश शाहू (cid:14)े विवरू्ቍ परिरवा(cid:17)प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत कि(cid:14)ये जाने (cid:14)े उपरान्त विवचारण न्यायालय द्वारा परिरवा(cid:17)प्ቔ (cid:14)े तथ्यों तथा बयान अंतगCत शिशवम ቔኌ्ቔपाठी, धारा 200 (cid:17)ं०्ቚ०सं० व 202 (cid:17)ं०्ቚ०सं० (cid:14)े आधार पर विवप्ቌीगण ्ቚवीण ቔኌ्ቔपाठी, ्ቦीमती ्ቦीमती निनकि(cid:14)ता व (cid:14)मलेश शाहू (cid:14)े विवरू्ቍ अं०धारा मधू, 147,452,323,504 भा०(cid:17)०सं० अपराध बनना पाते हुए उन्हें उक्त अपराध में विवचारण हेतु तलब कि(cid:14)या गया। मामला फौज(cid:17)ारी वा(cid:17) सं० 192/2021 से सम्बजिन्धत है। ्ቚाथY (cid:14)ा (cid:14)थन है कि(cid:14) अपने परिरवा(cid:17) में अशिभयुक्तगण लቌኚमीशं(cid:14)र साहू, निननितन साहू, ्ቦीमती विपं(cid:14)ी व शैलेश शाहू (cid:14)ा भी नाम शिलखाया था लेकि(cid:14)न न्यायालय द्वारा इन्हें तलब नहीं कि(cid:14)या गया। अब वा(cid:17)ी मु(cid:14)(cid:17)मा सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू० 1 रामशं(cid:14)र पटवा तथा सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू० 2 ्ቦीमती सत्यभामा (cid:14)ा बयान हो चु(cid:14)ा है। इन्होंने अपने बयान में ्ቚश्नगत अशिभयुक्तगण (cid:14)ा नाम शिलया है। अतः इन्हें भी तलब कि(cid:14)या जाना आवश्य(cid:14) है। प्ቔावली (cid:14)े अवलो(cid:14)न से स्पष्ट है कि(cid:14) रमाशं(cid:14)र द्वारा (cid:17)ी गयी तहरीर (cid:14)े आधार पर दि(cid:17)नां(cid:14) 07.11.2020 (cid:14)ो धारा 323, 504 भा०(cid:17)ं०सं० (cid:14)े अन्तगCत थाना सरेनी द्वारा दि(cid:17)नां(cid:14) एन०सी०आर० (cid:17)जC (cid:14)ी गयी थी। उक्त तहरीर में रामशं(cid:14)र पटवा द्वारा (cid:14)थन कि(cid:14)या कि(cid:14) 9 बजे ्ቚातः उस(cid:14)े (cid:17)ु(cid:14)ान (cid:14)े सामने आ(cid:14)र पुरानी , शिशवम ቔኌ्ቔपाठी व पत्नी रंजिजश (cid:14)ो ले(cid:14)र उस(cid:14)े पड़ोस (cid:14)े ्ቚवीण ቔኌ्ቔपाठी (cid:14)ो समय (cid:14)रीब

07.11.2020 , ्ቦीमती मधू शिशवम ቔኌ्ቔपाठी गं(cid:17)ी गं(cid:17)ी गाशिलयां (cid:17)ेने लगे और ्ቚाथY (cid:14)े लड़(cid:14)े उमेश पटवा व सुधीर (cid:14)े मना (cid:14)रने पर लाठी डण्डा से मारने लगी। बचाने ्ቚाथY (cid:14)ी औरत ्ቦीमती सत्यभामा , सुधीर तथा पत्नी सत्यभामा (cid:14)े आयी तो उस(cid:14)ो भी मारा पीटा। ्ቚाथY (cid:14)े लड़(cid:14)े उमेश शरीर पर चोटें आयीं। (cid:14)ायCवाही (cid:14)रने (cid:14)ी (cid:14)ृपा (cid:14)रें।

07.01.2021 रामशं(cid:14)र द्वारा धारा पुनः रामशं(cid:14)र (cid:14)ी तरफ से दि(cid:17)नां(cid:14) (cid:14)ो परिरवा(cid:17) (cid:17)ाखिखल कि(cid:14)या गया जिजसमें 200 (cid:17)ं०्ቚ०सं० (cid:14)े बयान में मा्ቔ इतना (cid:14)हा गया कि(cid:14) निननितन , अब सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू० 1 रामशं(cid:14)र (cid:14)े बयान विपं(cid:14)ी , शैलेश आदि(cid:17) भी ्ቚनितप्ቌी (cid:14)े साथ थे। व सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू० 2 ्ቦीमती सत्यभामा (cid:14)े बयानों में कि(cid:14)ये गये (cid:14)थनों (cid:14)े आधार पर अशिभयुक्तगण (cid:14)ो तलब (cid:14)रने (cid:14)ी मांग (cid:14)ी गयी है तथा एन०सी०आर० (cid:14)े सम्बन्ध में यह (cid:14)हा गया है कि(cid:14) पुशिलस द्वारा सा(cid:17)े (cid:14)ागज पर (cid:17)स्तखत (cid:14)रा शिलया गया था। पूवC में दि(cid:17)ये गये बयानों एवं सा्ቌी पी०डब्लू० 1 रमाशं(cid:14)र व पी०डब्लू० 2 ्ቦीमती सत्यभामा (cid:14)े साቌኚयों से तुलना (cid:14)रने पर ऐसा ्ቚतीत होता है कि(cid:14) उपरोक्त तथा(cid:14)थिथत अशिभयुक्तगण (cid:14)ो मा्ቔ मोटे तौर पर घटना में संशिलप्त होना बताया गया है जो विवश्वसीय ्ቚतीत नहीं होता है। एन०सी०आर० में कि(cid:14)ये गए (cid:14)थन एवं परिरवा(cid:17) में कि(cid:14)ये 5 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025 गये (cid:14)थन व धारा 200 (cid:17)ं०्ቚ०सं० (cid:14)े बयान में कि(cid:14)ये गये (cid:14)थन जो इस आपराथिध(cid:14) मु(cid:14)(cid:17)मे (cid:14)ा आधार है दि(cid:17)ये गये साቌኚयों में उक्त अशिभयुक्तगण (cid:14)ी तलबी (cid:14)े सम्बन्ध में (cid:14)थन ्ቚगनित(cid:14)ारी ्ቚतीत होता है। अतः उन्हें तलब कि(cid:14)ये जाने (cid:14)ा आधार ्ቚयाCप्त नहीं है। अतः ्ቚाथCनाप्ቔ 67 ख निनरस्त कि(cid:14)ये जाने योग्य है। आ(cid:17)ेश ्ቚाथCनाप्ቔ 67 ख अन्तगCत धारा 319 (cid:17)ं०्ቚ०सं० निनरस्त कि(cid:14)या जाता है। आपजित्त 84 ख त्ቖुसार निनस्तारिरत (cid:14)ी जाती है। प्ቔावली वास्ते शे्ቧ साቌኚय दि(cid:17)नां(cid:14) 04.11.2025 (cid:14)ो पेश हो।"

15. For coming to the conclusion as to whether the order impugned is justified or not, this court deems it appropriate to refer the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein under :- "88. In Mohd. Shafi [Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : AIR 2007 SC 1899] , it was held that the prerequisite for exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC is the satisfaction of the court to proceed against a person who is not an accused but against whom evidence occurs, for which the court can even wait till the cross-examination is over and that there would be no illegality in doing so. A similar view has been taken by a two-Judge Bench in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 13 SCC 608 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1135] . This Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 785 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 355] seems to have misread the judgment in Mohd. Shafi [Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : AIR 2007 SC 1899] , as it construed that the said judgment laid down that for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, the court has to necessarily wait till the witness is cross- examined and on complete appreciation of evidence, come to the conclusion whether there is a need to proceed under Section 319 CrPC.

92. Thus, in view of the above, we hold that power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence. Question (iv)—What is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 CrPC?

93.Section 319(1) CrPC empowers the court to proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of offence, though not an accused before the court. The word “appear” means “clear to the comprehension”, or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with “proved”. It imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof.

94. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1963 SC 1094 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 178] , a four-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with the meaning of the word “appear”. The Court held that the appropriate meaning of the word “appears” is “seems”. It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. In Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas [(2009) 14 SCC 25 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1278] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court was again required to examine the importance of the word “appear” as appearing in the section. The Court 6 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025 held that for the fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that a person had committed an offence, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance enabling it to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case.

95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321 : (2013) 11 Scale 23] , held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be “arrested” or “summoned”, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons.

97. In Mohd. Shafi [Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : AIR 2007 SC 1899] , this Court held that it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 CrPC, it must arrive at a satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. Question (iv)—What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? Answer

117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC would be the same as for framing a charge [Ed. : The conclusion of law as stated in para 106, p. 138c-d, may be compared:“Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction”. See also especially in para 100 at p. 136f-g.] . The 7 CRLR No. - 1346 of 2025 difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different."

16. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist based upon the facts aforesaid, as also the statement of witnesses, this Court is of the view that no interference in the order dated 04.10.2025 is required by this Court.

17. Aforesaid is for the reason that a conjoint consideration of the facts/allegations leveled in NCR lodged under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. on the basis of written report submitted by revisionist - Ram Shanker, according to which Praveen, Smt. Madhu, Shivam and Smt. Nikita committed the crime, and his statement before the Magistrate recorded in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C., according to which Praveen, Madhu, Shivam, Nikita and Kamlesh committed the crime, and contents of complaint indicate that Ram Shanker (PW-1) and Satyabhama (PW-2) improved the basic story and therefore this court is of the view that trial court in not summoning the present opposite parties to face the trial has not committed any error.

18. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. November 21, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench