Allahabad High Court
Bablu @ Rajesh Pratap vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91916
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1169 of 2025
Revisionist :- Bablu @ Rajesh Pratap
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Tripathi,Akhilesh Srivastava,G.A.,Saksham Srivastava
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsels appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 6.2.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hathras in Sessions Trial No.669 of 2022 (State Vs. Harish 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, 307, 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C.
3. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that now it is well settled law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the learned trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot take into account the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation for drawing the satisfaction that it is a fit case that a person can be summoned as an accused to face trial along with other co-accused. It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment, rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2010)2 SCC (Cri) 355, had categorically held that the trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., can only take into account the evidence which had been collected during inquiry or trial before the trial court and the material collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be taken into account for the said purpose.
4. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that besides various infirmities in the impugned order dated 6.2.2025, it cannot sustain in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the learned trial court had drawn its satisfaction for summoning the revisionist to face trial on the basis of the contents of the F.I.R., the statements of the informant Govind and eye witness Rahul recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony of P.W.-1 Govind, P.W.-2 Shyam and P.W.-3 Veerpal recorded before the trial court, whereas it is well settled law that such satisfaction cannot be drawn by taking into account the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation i.e. the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that this criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 6.2.2025 is liable to be set aside and further the matter is liable to be remanded to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard.
6. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.2 though tried to defend the impugned order dated 6.2.2025 but ultimately has agreed that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not have been taken into account for drawing the satisfaction for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.2 has further agreed that this Court may set aside the impugned order dated 6.2.2025 and may remand the matter to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra).
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the trial court for drawing the satisfaction for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had considered the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 6.2.2025 is extracted as under:-
"???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? 161 ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????????-1 ???????, ?????????-2 ??????, ?????????-3 ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ?????????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ??, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ??? ??, ??? ???? ?????????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? 319 ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????-147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 ?? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?????"
8. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment, rendered in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) and other judgments, had categorically held that the trial court, for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot take into account the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
9. Since learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.2 have agreed that the impugned order dated 6.2.2025 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 6.2.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hathras in Sessions Trial No.669 of 2022 (State Vs. Harish and others), is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra).
Order Date :- 27.5.2025
Salim
