Nabeel Alias Guddu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2461 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nabeel Alias Guddu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120007
 
Court No. - 86
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3727 of 2025
 
Revisionist :- Nabeel Alias Guddu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shubham Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Javed Alam
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Shubham Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Javed Alam, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive Court (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 260/2019 (State Vs. Abdul Wajid and others) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had considered the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the Case Diary under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments had categorically laid down the law that for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only the evidence available before the trial court i.e. the evidence which had come on record during trial or inquiry can be considered and further the trial court for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist to buttress his arguments has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92; in the case of Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 773; in the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368 and in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 378 and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that the trial court for exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has categorically argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 24.06.2025, it is apparent that the trial court for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had derived its satisfaction on the basis of the material available in the Case Diary and the evidence led before the trial court, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the order impugned in this criminal revision cannot sustain, as it is well settled proposition of law that the trial court for the purpose of exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot consider the material collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. available in the Case Diary.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Javed Alam, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 have not disputed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various judgments that for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court cannot consider the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the trial court, while passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2025, had considered the material collected by the Investigating Officer available in the Case Diary as well as the evidence which had come on record before the trial court therefore, even if the material available in the Case Diary is ignored, there is sufficient evidence before the trial court on the basis of which the revisionist can be summoned to face trial.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State have submitted that since the trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had considered the evidence available before it along with the material collected by the Investigating Officer available in the Case Diary, this Court may set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 and may remand the matter to the trial court to consider and decide the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. strictly on the basis of the evidence collected during trial and inquiry as contemplated under section 319 Cr.P.C. read with the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92; in the case of Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 773; in the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368 and in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 378 had categorically held that the trial court, for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has to derive its satisfaction only on the basis of the evidence collected during trial and inquiry and further the trial court cannot consider the material collected by the Investigating Officer or the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation.

10. Since, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 have accepted that the trial court, while considering the material available in the Case Diary along with the evidence available before the trial court, had committed an error therefore, this Court is of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial court to consider and decide the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, strictly in accordance with the provisions made under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter.

11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, particularly the consensus arrived at in between the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive Court (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 260/2019 (State Vs. Abdul Wajid and others), is hereby set aside.

12. The trial court is hereby directed to consider and decide the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with the provisions made under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is further provided that the trial court shall consider and decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. within a period of one month from today.

Order Date :- 23.7.2025/A. Mandhani