Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Chawan Prakash, J.
Man Singh – Revisionist
versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024
Decided on 7.1.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties
For the Revisionists: Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav, Counsel
For the Opposite Party: Dev Raj Singh, G.A., Counsel

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) While invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court should consider statements of witnesses adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon material available in charge-sheet or case diary.
(2) While passing summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima facie case is made out, or not.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 [Section 358 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A and 302 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Trial court is empowered to summon a person to face trial, who is not accused in the case on the basis of evidence – Word ‘evidence’ is limited to evidence recorded during trial – Trial court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in charge-sheet or case diary because such materials contained in charge-sheet or case diary do not constitute evidence – Such power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection – While passing summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima facie case is made out, or not – For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient – Impugned order has been passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge by proper reasoning – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Result: Criminal Revision dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Chawan Prakash, J.—Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dev Raj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi, in S.T. No. 74 of 2020 (State Vs. Manoj Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the daughter of the informant namely Radhika was solemnized with Manoj about five years ago according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and after marriage, husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law and Dewar Ashok Kumar started demanding a buffalo and golden ring as additional dowry and harassing his daughter. Manoj had illicit relations with Sunita, sister-in-law. One month before the incident, Sunita and Manoj were called by the informant. On 07.01.2020 the husband and other in-laws hanged his daughter after killing her. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Pairsa, District Kaushambi against husband Manoj, father-in- law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Dewar) Ashok Kumar and Sunita Devi on the basis of tehrir given by the informant Man Singh. During investigation, statement of prosecution witnesses and other witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against Manoj under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, charges were framed against the accused Vinod. Thereafter, after recording statements of PW-1 and PW-2, accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were summoned to face trial by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that marriage of the daughter of the informant namely Radhika was solemnized with Manoj about five years ago of the alleged incident, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals in which sufficient dowry was given but the husband and other inlaws were not satisfied with the dowry. After marriage, husband Manoj and his family members started demanding a buffalo and golden ring as additional dowry and harassing his daughter. Manoj had illicit relations with his sister-in-law, Sunita. On 07.01.2020 the husband and other family members killed her daughter. On receiving information, he came there and found that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the floor. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Pairsa, District Kaushambi against husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Dewar) Ashok Kumar and Sunita Devi on the basis of tehrir given by the informant Man Singh. During investigation, statement of informant and other witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they supported the prosecution version. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against Manoj under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, statements of PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh were recorded in which they supported the prosecution version and stated about the role of opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It is further submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 but the learned trial court rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document