Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.
Ibrar @ Raju - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 4154 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist :Ram Bahadur, Sr. Advocate, Vishal Srivastava
For the Opposite Party : Manoj Kumar Bhatt, Preet Pal Singh Rathore

The court stressed the requirement for strong and cogent evidence and a cautious approach in summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Accused - Sections 354, 452, 376-D and 506 I.P.C. - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist sought to quash the order summoning him to face trial for alleged offenses including rape. The prosecutrix alleged rape by the revisionist and others, but the revisionist was not named in the original F.I.R.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's summoning order was found to be illegal and lacking in evidence. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and the lack of credible evidence against the revisionist.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of summoning the revisionist based on the prosecutrix's late introduction of his name and discrepancies in the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and highlighted the importance of cautious approach and discretion in summoning an accused.
Final Decision: The impugned order summoning the revisionist was set aside, and the revisionist was not required to face trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Ram Bahadur and Mr Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record.

2. The revisionist, by way of filing the present revision, has sought to quash the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.132 of 2020 (State Vs. Mahfooz) arising out of Case Crime No. 331 of 2018 under Sections 354, 452, 376-D and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad. By the impugned order, learned trial court, on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has summoned the revisionist to face trial.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged on 20.07.2018 by opposite party no.2 (prosecutrix) alleging therein that her neighbours Israr alias Raju son of Harun alias Babu and Mahfooz son of Shamum had evil eyes on her. On 05.07.2018 at about 2 p.m. when prosecutrix was returning home from Mansoorabad, they teased her in front of Fatehpur. The prosecutrix made a complaint on 100 Dial, but no action was taken. On 08.07.2018 at about 1.00 a.m. (in night) aforesaid two persons with two unknown companions entered into the house from the roof. The prosecutrix was sleeping opening the door due to hot weather. Meanwhile, all the four persons gagged her mouth and on point of country-made pistol, they all committed rape wit her. They also threatened her not to disclose it to anyone, otherwise she and her mother will be killed. The prosecutrix gave information of the incident in the morning at Police Station Nawabganj, but no action was taken, hence an application is being moved to Inspector General of Police, Allahabad. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 17.4.2019 against Mahfooz son of Shamum. Thereafter vide CD Parcha dated 11.08.2019, the two accused Israr alias Raju and Bablu alias Sharif were exonerated. During trial after statement of two witnesses, prosecutrix PW 1 and Anwari Bano PW 2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution alleging therein that the report of prosecutrix was not registered at Police Station Nawabganj, she moved an application dated 12.07.2018 to Inspector General of Police, Prayagraj and on this application Case Crime No. 331 of 2018 under Sections 354, 452, 376-D and 506 I.P.C. was registered against Israr alias Raju son of Harun alias Babu and Mahfooz son of Shamum. After narrating the averments of the F.I.R., it is further alleged that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has taken the names of Ibrar alias Raju son of Khalil alias Babu and Sharif alias Bablu son of Haneef. In statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has taken the names of the aforesaid accused persons. The applicant has also moved an application for amendment before the High Court. Her statement has been recorded by the trial court in which she has implicated Ibrar alias Raju and Sharif alias Bablu and has reiterated that they have committed rape with her. Statement of Anwari Bano was also recorded and she has also narrated the entire incident that Ibrar alias Raju son of Khalil alias Babu and Sharif alias Bablu son of Haneef have committed rape on her. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer was made to summon the accused. Learned trial court has allowed aforesaid application and summoned the revisionist-accused and Bablu alias Sharif.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that in the F.I.R. revisionist was not named. The F.I.R was registered against Israr alias Raju son of Harun alias Babu and Mahfooz son of Shamum and their two unknown companions. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has reiterated the version of the F.I.R. and has named Israr alias Raju and Mahfooz son of Shamum as accused persons who have com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document