Allahabad High Court
Irshad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
Criminal Revision Defective No. - 438 of 2025
Irshad and others
..Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and another
..Opposite Parties
Counsel for Revisionists
:
Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Aman Chaturvedi, Aniket Srivastav, Toshendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HONBLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
(Crl. Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay/I.A. No.2 of 2025)
1. Instant Criminal Revision has been filed with the delay of 09 days.
2. Finding the grounds/reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay to be sufficient, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
3. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
(Order on the Memo of Revision)
1. Heard Shri Balkeshwar Srivastava along with Shri Tripati Narayan Pandey, who appeared for the revisionists, Shri Badrul Hasan along with Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, who appeared for the State and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Revision Under Section 397 Cr.P.C./Under Section 439 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "trial court") in S.T. No.142 of 2018 (State Vs. Walliullah and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 101/2015, Police Station - Jahangirganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
3. Vide impugned order dated 15.05.2025, the learned trial court in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists, namely Irshad, Irfan, Imran alias Rijwan, sons of Waliullah, and Asif, son of Mojivulla, to face the trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.
4. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant and indicated by the learned counsel for the parties, are as under :-
(i) An F.I.R. /Case Crime No.101/2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station - Jahangirganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar was lodged on 12.06.2015 by one Shabbir Khan against 09 persons namely Waliullah, Safiullah, Wasiullah, Irshad, Irfan, Imran, Aasif, Abushaad and Uliullah.
(ii) According to the F.I.R. on 12.06.2015 at 8.00 A.M. the named accused persons and 04 others hurled abuses and assaulted the informant- Shabbir Khan as also his son namely Abdul Hasan Khan.
(iii) From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the revisionists were named in the F.I.R.
(iv) During the investigation of the case the informant Shabbir Khan and Abdul Hasan Khan supported the prosecution story, as is evident from their statement on record, and despite this based upon the statements of other witnesses the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") dropped the names of the present revisionists and filed the charge-sheet only against three persons namely Waliullah, Safiullah and Wasiullah.
(v) During investigation, the informant - Shabbir Khan was medically examined and according to the injury report on record, the Shabbir Khan sustained injuries, which can be deduced from following portion of injury report.
"Examined-Sabbeer Kha, aged abou7t 8-0 years/male, son of Rasool Kha, resident of Village-Ainawa, Police Station-Jahagirganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar at 11:20 a.m. on 12.06.2015.
B/B:- 0591 Pujari Pandey, Police Station-Jahagirganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar.
M/I:- A single black mole over Rt. temporal part 1cm away from lateral end of eyebrow.
Injuries:-
1- L.W. 6x1cmbone deep over head on top 8cm above Lt. ear fresh.
2- Contusion over half lateral part of Lt. hand, red, fresh.
3- Contusion 7x3cm over lower extensor part of Rt. thigh, red, fresh.
4- Abrasion 1x0.3cm over anterior chamber of Lt. ear, red, fresh, simple.
5- Contusion 10x7cm over middle anterior part of Lt. thigh, red, fresh, simple.
6- L.W. 2x0.5cm bone deep over upper anterior part of Lt. lower leg, 4cm below knee joint, fresh.
7- Contusion 7x5cm over middle anterior part of Lt. lower leg, red, fresh.
8- Contusion 5x2cm over Lt. shoulder, red, fresh, simple.
Note:- All injuries are caused by hard and blunt object, injury no. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 K.U.PO. being referred to District Hospital, Ambedkar Nagar for x-ray, expert opinion and management also."
(vi) As per the injury report on record, extracted hereinbelow, Abdul Hasan Khan also sustained injuries :-
"Examined-Mr. Abdul Hassan, aged about 35 years/male, son of Mr. Sabbir Ahmad, resident of Village-Ainawa, Police Station-Jahagirganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar on 12.06.2015 at 10:35 p.m.
B/B:-0591 Pujari Pandey, Police Station-Jahagirganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar.
M/I:- A single black mole over forehead on midline 3.5cm above the bridge of nose.
Injuries:-
1- Abraded contusion 4cm x 4cm situated over (Lt.) occipital region in scalp 12cm above from (Lt.) ear tragus, K.U.O. fresh, h/o LOC (+), vomiting (+).
2- Incised wound 2.5cm x 0.5cm situated over (Lt.) parieto-temporal region in scalp 8cm above (Lt.) ear tragus, bone deep, bleeding (+), h/o LOC (+), vomiting (+), sharp, edge, K.U.O., fresh.
3- Contusion with swelling & tenderness 2cm x 2cm situated over (Lt.) occipital region in scalp 8cm from (Lt.) ear tragus, K.U.O., fresh, hard and blunt.
4- Contusion 18cm x 2cm reddish situated over B/L side of spine on back of chest below scapula, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
5- Contusion 14cm x 2cm reddish, swelling and tenderness, situated over (Rt.) back of chest into scapular and below scapula region, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
6- Contusion 6cm x 2cm reddish situated over (Rt.) scapula, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
7- Abrasion 2cm x 1cm bleeding (+), situated over (Rt.) forearm post. aspect 14cm below (Rt.) elbow, hard and blunt, simple, fresh.
8- Contusion 5cm x 3cm reddish, swelling and tenderness, situated over (Lt.) forearm on lower third medial side, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
9- Lacerated contusion 28cm x swelling and tenderness laceration 1cm situated over (Lt.) leg and ankle, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
10- Contusion 5cm x swelling and tenderness situated over (Lt.) foot below ankle lateral side, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresh.
11- Contusion 7cm x swelling and tenderness reddish, situated over (Rt.) leg lateral side 10cm below (Rt.) knee, hard and blunt, K.U.O., fresg.
Remarks:- Injury no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 are K.U.O. and being referred to District Hospital, Ambedkar Nagar for x-ray and expert opinion and needful management.
Injury no. 1, 2, 3 x-ray head-AP/Lat, injury no. 4, 5, 6 x-ray chest-AP view, injury no. 8 x-Oray (Lt.) forearm-AP/Lat, injury no. 9 x-ray (Lt.) leg with ankle-AP/Lat. injury no. 10 x-ray (Lt.) foot-AP/Lat. injury no. 11 x-ray (Rt.) leg-AP/Lat. LTI attested."
(vii) Following the committal, the case was registered as S.T. No.142/2018 and charges were framed against the accused namely Waliullah, Safiullah and Wasiullah.
(viii) Before the trial court the injured - Shabbir Khan and Injured- Abdul Hasan Khan have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2.
(ix) Injured-Shabbir Khan (PW-1) in examination-in-chief indicated the names of the persons involved in the crime namely, Waliullah, Safiullah, Wasiullah, Irshad, Irfan, Imran, Aasif, Abushaad and Uliullah.
(x) Another injured witness Abdul Hasan Khan (PW-2) has also in his statement before trial court indicated names of Waliullah, Safiullah, Wasiullah, Irshad, Irfan, Imran, Aasif, Abushaad and Uliullah in regard to the occurrence dated 12.06.2015 in which he sustained injuries. According to PW-2 these persons committed the crime.
(xi) It is to be noted that on a query put with regard to Asif during cross examination, the informant-injured Shabbir Khan (PW-1) stated that Asif was armed with 'Gadasa', and in this view of the matter to the view of this Court in the cross-examination questions related to other accused were not put.
(xii) At this stage the learned counsel for the revisionists stated that the entire prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted as indicated in the F.I.R. dated 12.06.2015, which is the basis of the pending trial in issue, for the reason that the same was lodged in counter-blast to the F.I.R. lodged by Waliullah on the same day, i.e. on 12.06.2015, registered as Case Crime No.0102/2015, at Police Station Jahangirganj, District - Ambedkar Nagar, according to which the occurrence took place at 8.00 A.M.
(xiii) On the aforesaid, the learned State Counsel submitted that date, time and place of the occurrence indicates that some altercation took place between the parties and this fact would be of no help to the present revisionists as prima facie F.I.R. lodged from the side of the revisionist proves the presence of the revisionists at the spot of occurrence.
5. In the aforesaid background of the case, present revision has been filed impeaching the order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar in S.T. No.142 of 2018 (State Vs. Walliullah and others).
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the learned trial court has committed an error of law and fact both in not considering the entire statement (s) of the injured witnesses namely Shabbir Khan (PW-1) and Abdul Hasan Khan (PW-2) though ought to have been considered and this aspect of the case that only part of statement has been considered is apparent from a bare perusal of copies of statements of these witnesses on record. In such circumstances indulgence of this court is required.
7. The further submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that a perusal of the entire statement including cross examination part of these witnesses would indicate that these witnesses are not intact.
8. It is also submitted that for summoning a person to face the trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cogent evidence is required as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and in this case the same is missing. The relevant paragraphs (Paragraphs 105, 106 and 117.5), referred, are extracted herein under :-
"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.
X X X X X X X X X X
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 alsoespecially in para 100 at p. 136f-g.] . The 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."
9. Opposing the present criminal revision it is submitted that at this stage mini trial is not required and only the prima facie satisfaction is required and in the instant case the injured witness namely Shabbir Khan (PW-1) and Abdul Hasan Khan (PW-2) have indicated the names of the present revisionists, and taking note of this aspect of the case as also the settled principle of law according to which the evidence/testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (s) of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191 and Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) in para 78 observed that "the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation". and thereafter in para 85 it has been observed that "in view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilised only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. The "evidence" is thus, limited to the evidence recorded during trial." and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para 6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh[Hardeep Singhv.State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial." and thereafter, in the case of Manjeet Singh (supra) observed as under:
"15. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions on the scope and ambit of the powers of the court under Section 319CrPC can be summarised as under:
15.1. That while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished.
15.2. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly.
15.3. The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law.
15.4. To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.
15.5. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial.
15.6. Section 319CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it.
15.7. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency.
15.8. Section 319CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial.
15.9. The power under Section 319(1)CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion.
15.10. The court can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence.
15.11. The word "evidence" in Section 319CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents.
15.12. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
15.13. If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s).
15.14. That if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised.
15.15. That power under Section 319CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination.
15.16. Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses).
15.17. While exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.
16. Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand we are of the opinion that the learned trial court as well as the High Court have materially erred in dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC and refusing to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial in exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC. It is required to be noted that in FIR No. 477 all the private respondents herein who are sought to be arraigned as additional accused were specifically named with specific role attributed to them. It is specifically mentioned that while they were returning back, Mahindra XUV bearing no. HR 40A 4352 was standing on the road which belongs to Sartaj Singh and Sukhpal. Tejpal, Parab Saran Singh, Preet Samrat and Sartaj were standing. Parab Sharan was having lathi in his hand, Tejpal was having a gandasi, Sukhpal was having a danda, Sartaj was having a revolver and Preet Singh was sitting in the jeep. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that all the aforesaid persons with common intention parked the Mahindra XUV HR 40A 4352 in a manner which blocks the entire road and they were armed with the weapons.
17. Despite the above specific allegations, when the charge-sheet/final report came to be filed only two persons came to be charge-sheeted and the private respondents herein, though named in the FIR, were put/kept in Column 2. It is the case on behalf of the private respondents herein that four different DSPs inquired into the matter and thereafter when no evidence was found against them the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 and therefore the same is to be given much weightage rather than considering/believing the examination-in-chief of the appellant herein. Heavy reliance is placed onBrijendra Singh[Brijendra Singhv.State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 144] .
18.However none of DSPs and/or their reports, if any, are part of the charge-sheet. None of the DSPs are shown as witnesses. None of the DSPs are investigating officer. Even on considering the final report/charge-sheet as a whole there does not appear to be any consideration on the specific allegations qua the accused, the private respondents herein, who are kept in Column 2. Entire discussion in the charge-sheet/final report is against Sartaj Singh only.
19.So far as the private respondents are concerned only thing which is stated is:"During the investigation of the present case, Shri Baljinder Singh, HPS, DSP Assandh and Shri Kushalpal, HPS, DSP Indri found accused Tejpal Singh, Sukhpal Singh, sons of Gurdev Singh, Parab Sharan Singh and Preet Samrat Singh sons of Mohan Sarup Singh caste Jat Sikh, residents of Bandrala innocent and accordingly Sections 148, 149 and 341IPC were deleted in the case and they were kept in Column 2, whereas challan against accused Sartaj has been presented in the Court."
20.Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein victim injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court inState of M.P.v.Mansingh[State of M.P.v.Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9);Abdul Sayeedv.State of M.P.[Abdul Sayeedv.State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ;State of U.P.v.Naresh[State of U.P.v.Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC.
21.Now so far as the reasoning given by the High Court while dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC is concerned, the High Court itself has observed that PW 1 Manjeet Singh is the injured witness and therefore his presence cannot be doubted as he has received firearm injuries along with the deceased. However, thereafter the High Court has observed that the statement of Manjeet Singh indicates over implication and that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and the injuries concerned are attributed only to Sartaj Singh, even for the sake of arguments if someone was present with Sartaj Singh it cannot be said that they had any common intention or there was meeting of mind or knew that Sartaj would be firing. The aforesaid reasonings are not sustainable at all.
22. At the stage of exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC, the court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on the merits of the allegations of the case. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that the allegations against all the accused persons right from the very beginning were for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC. The High Court has failed to appreciate the fact that for attracting the offence under Section 149IPC only forming part of unlawful assembly is sufficient and the individual role and/or overt act is immaterial. Therefore, the reasoning given by the High Court that no injury has been attributed to either of the respondents except that they were armed with weapons and therefore, they cannot be added as accused is unsustainable. The learned trial court and the High Court have failed to exercise the jurisdiction and/or powers while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC.
23.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though a common judgment and order was passed by the High Court inSatkar Singhv.State of Haryana[ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported asManjeet Singhv.State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nomSatkar Singhv.State of Haryana] at that stage the appellant herein did not prefer appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court inManjeet Singhv.State of Haryana[Manjeet Singhv.State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed.: This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] and therefore this Court may not exercise the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution is concerned the aforesaid has no substance. Once it is found that the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein as additional accused, belated filing of the appeal or not filing the appeal at a relevant time when this Court considered the very judgment and order inSatkar Singhv.State of Haryana[ CRR No. 3238 of 2018 reported asManjeet Singhv.State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 sub nomSatkar Singhv.State of Haryana] cannot be a ground not to direct to summon the private respondents herein when this Court has found that a prima facie case is made out against the private respondents herein and they are to be summoned to face the trial.
24.Now so far as the submission on behalf of the private respondents that though in the charge-sheet the private respondents herein were put in Column 2 at that stage the complainant side did not file any protest application is concerned, the same has been specifically dealt with by this Court inRajesh[Rajeshv.State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 801] . This Court in the aforesaid decision has specifically observed that even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well as who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC.
25.Similarly, the submission on behalf of the private respondents herein that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court there is much progress in the trial and therefore at this stage power under Section 319CrPC may not be exercised is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As per the settled proposition of law and as observed by this Court inHardeep Singh[Hardeep Singhv.State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , the powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that at the time when the application under Section 319CrPC was given only one witness was examined and examination-in-chief of PW 1 was recorded and while the cross-examination of PW 1 was going on, application under Section 319CrPC was given which came to be rejected by the learned trial court. The order passed by the learned trial court is held to be unsustainable. If the learned trial court would have summoned the private respondents herein at that stage such a situation would not have arisen. Be that as it may, as observed herein powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage from commencing of the trial and recording of evidence/deposition and before the conclusion of the trial at any stage.
26.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Manjeet Singhv.State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2782 [Ed.: This also disposed of CRR No. 3238 of 2018 by a common judgment and order]] passed by the High Court and that of the learned trial court dismissing the application under Section 319CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently the application submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein is hereby allowed and the learned trial court is directed to summon the private respondents herein to face the trial arising out of FIR No. 477 dated 27-7-2016 in Sessions Case No. 362 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149IPC."
12. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also settled proposition of law on the issue, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is for the following reasons:-
(i) The impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by trial court, whereby the trial court has summoned the revisionists to face the trial, is based upon the testimony of injured witnesses namely Shabbir Khan (PW-1) and Abdul Hasan Khan (PW-2), whose evidence/testimony has greater evidentiary value.
(ii) At this stage the Court is not required to appreciate and/or enter on the merits of the allegations of the case.
13. Having observed above, the instant application is dismissed.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
September 4, 2025
ML/-
