Sunita vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10812 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 97 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Sunita
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Smriti
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

Heard Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pramod Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing the order dated 04.01.2023, passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.4, District Hardoi on the application under Sections 319 Cr.P.C. in S. T. No.849 of 2021 "State vs. Pramod and others" in Case Crime No.454 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi whereby the revisionist has been summoned.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that initially a first information report came to be lodged under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against five accused persons including the present revisionist. However, upon conclusion of the investigation, no charge sheet came to be filed against the present revisionist as no credible evidence could be collected against her during investigation.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that during investigation, the statements of eye-witness, Santosh, Shri Ram and Reena have been recorded in which they have stated that the revisionist was not present at the place of occurrence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Her next submission is that the learned trial court has summoned the revisionist to stand trial for the offences under Sections 308, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the first informant, on the basis of statement of Ram Swaroop Gautam and Ambuj, who have been examined as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 before the learned trial Court in S. T. No.849 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that the law in respect of summoning any other accused person to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is clearly settled in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706.

Her further submission is that the impugned order does not record the kind of satisfaction, which is a condition precedent to summon an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) and Brijendra Singh (supra), therefore, he submits that the impugned order is palpably illegal and deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and mainly relying on the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who has vividly portrait the role of present revisionist.

Her further submission is that in view of aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court has come to pass the impugned order which is well discussed and reasoned wherein no interference by this Court is warranted in exercise of power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that the on the basis of evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the same is not efficient to clinch conviction, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist as to unavailability of evidence which is capable of clinching conviction in the facts of this case is not tenable. He therefore, submits that the instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

The kind of satisfaction which is required to be recorded by the learned trial Court before summoning an accused person to face the trial in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is stated in paragraph nos.105 & 106 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), which are quoted below:-

"105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

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."

Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that initially a first information report came to be lodged under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against five accused persons including the present revisionist. However, after conclusion of evidence, no charge sheet came to be filed against the present revisionist. Subsequently, The revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on an application moved by the first informant and in view of the fact that P.W.-1, Ram Swaroop Gautam has clearly stated that on the date of incident, the present revisionist also assaulted the P.W.-2, Ambuj.

Having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, therefore, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

However, it is needless to mention that if the revisionist applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal revision is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

Mahesh