Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177880
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2872 of 2023
Virendra Kumar Tripathi
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Aakansha Singh Chandraul, Rafiqa Anees Khan, Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Kamlakar Pal, Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 6.5.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, District Chitrakoot in Session Case No. 604 of 2022 (State Vs. Arvind Kumar and 2 others) arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2022, under sections 498A, 304B IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot by which, the application of revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to face the trial.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the informant (revisionist herein) his daughter (Sandhya) who was married to Arvind Kumar Pandey was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for demand of dowry. It was alleged that due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the accused persons committed the murder of his daughter by hanging. The FIR was registered registered against five persons- namely, Arvind Kumar Pandey (husband), Ram Prakash Pandey (father-in-law), Anoopa Devi (mother-in-law), Aaradhna Devi (sister-in-law) and Chhotu @ Neeraj Pandey (brother-in-law). During trial the revisionist moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to face the trial. The trial court, after considering the evidence rejected the said application.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is first informant and he has lodged F.I.R. against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as against other accused persons. After investigation, opposite party no.2 and 3 were exonerated in an arbitrary manner without considering the evidence on record and they were not charge sheeted. He further submitted that all the family members were involved in the said offence and argued that the FIR contained specific allegations all the in-laws. Learned counsel further argued that during trial, P.W.1 Virendra Kumar Tripathi (revisionist) and P.W.-2 (Suman Tripathi), they have specifically named the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in their statement. It was submitted that in view of statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, application filed by applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to face trial in the aforesaid case, has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the evidence on record. It was further submitted that the impugned order is against the facts and law, thus liable to be set aside and matter may be remitted to learned trial Court to consider and decide application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has opposed and argued that though, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been named in the F.I.R. but during investigation, their complicity in commission of alleged offence was not found, thus they were exonerated on the basis of material available on record and Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. It was further submitted that opposite party No.2 (Nand), who is unmarried was staying at her aunt's house a day before the incident and opposite party No.3 (Devar) is a minor was not present in the house at the time of the incident. Accordingly, they were exonerated and no charge sheet was filed against them. The informant has filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in order to falsely implicate and harass the opposite party nos.2 and 3. It was stated that learned Court below, after appraisal of evidence on record, did not find any case against the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and has rightly rejected application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned AGA also opposed the revision and support the submission of learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
7. Now the main question is whether the impugned order dated 6.5.2023 passed by the court below is as per law or not. By the impugned order, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Before considering the merits of the contention, it is necessary to refer to Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. - (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
.........
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section
(1), then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.? By reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused."
8. Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon any person not being an accused if it appears from the evidence during inquiry or trial that such person has committed an offence.
9. The power of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. It is not that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has passed certain judgments and it has become decided principle of law that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and 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.
10. I have considered the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. In the present case, apart from the general allegations of dowry demand in the FIR no substantive evidence has been brought on record during trial against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. On the contrary, the material on record shows that opposite party No.2-Aradhna Devi (sister-in-law) was at her aunt's house a day prior to the incident and opposite party No.3-Neeraj Pandey (brother-in-law) was minor and he was also not present at the time of incident. The court below in the impugned order dated 6.5.2023 has given a detailed reasons by dismissing the said application. In such circumstances, no strong evidence is available to summon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
12. As discussed above, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 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. The trial court has rightly appreciated the material and rejected the said application. I find no material illegality or perversity or error of jurisdiction could be shown in the impugned order so as to require any interference by this Court. The revision has no substance and thus, liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly the revision is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
October 7, 2025
Md Faisal
