Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Jamin And Another - Applicant
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. - 2399 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Accused - 147, 148, 302/149 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought quashing of an order summoning them to face trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, based on an FIR filed in 2009. The trial against the originally summoned accused had concluded, resulting in their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order summoning the applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not vitiated by the conclusion of the trial against the originally summoned accused. It emphasized that the trial against the applicants would be held afresh, and they would have the right to defend themselves.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of summoning the applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the conclusion of the trial against the originally summoned accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conclusion of trial against the originally summoned accused did not prejudice the applicants, as the trial against them would be held afresh. It emphasized the need to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and that the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial.
Final Decision: The application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi in Misc. Case No. 448 of 2021 in Session Trial No. 582 of 2009, summoning the applicants to face trial of the offence alleged in F.I.R. No. 523 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 14.04.2009 one Waris (father of the opposite party no. 2) had lodged F.I.R. No. 523 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, in Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi against 5 persons, including the applicants, stating that when the complainant was going to his fields at about 02:15 p.m. with his brother Arif, the accused persons met them on the way and on the exhortation of the applicants and one Irfan alias Munna, the other accused persons Irshad and Abdul Aziz fired shots by pistols. The complainant’s brother got injured and he fell down on the spot. Upon hearing the gun-shot and the cries of the complainant, Zaheer Khan and Jaipal reached on the spot and challenged the accused persons whereupon they ran away.
4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 14.07.2009 against Irshad and Irfan for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and the investigation against the applicants remained pending. The trial Court tool cognizance of the offences and summoned Irshad and Irfan to face the trial.
5. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the other named accused persons also, but it was rejected by means of an order dated 29.01.2010 for the reason that the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were yet to be cross-examined.
6. The complainant challenged the order dated 29.01.2010 by filing Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2010 and this Court disposed off the revision by means of an order dated 14.05.2010 by observing that the prayer for summoning the accused persons be considered after the cross-examination of the witnesses was over.
7. After cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, the complainant again filed an application for summoning the rest of the accused persons under section 319 Cr.P.C., but this too was rejected by means of an order dated 19.07.2010. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2010, challenging the order dated 19.07.2010.
8. During pendency of Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2010 before this Court, the trial was concluded by the judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 wherein it was held that the accused persons Irshad and Irfan created an unlawful assembly with the other accused persons and they killed the deceased Arif by shooting at him with a firearm. The accused persons Irshad and Irfan were convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. and they were acquitted of rest of the charges by means of a judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the trial Court. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C., two years for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment and payment of Rs.5,000/- fine for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for six months in case of failure to pay fine.
9. Irshad and Irfan filed Criminal Appeal No. 1886 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, which is still pending.
10. Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2010 was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by this Court whereby the order dated 19.07.2010 was set aside and the application was directed to be decided afresh. On 22.09.2021, the complainant again filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order dated 14.09.2021 passed
The court emphasized the need to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and that the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial, and held that the conclusion of trial a....
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
The court affirmed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of trial and sentencing, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on evidence.
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly based on strong and cogent evidence, and the test for summoning a person is one which is more than prima facie c....
The court established that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC is contingent upon the existence of prima facie evidence presented during the trial, and that the trial....
The court emphasized the importance of strong and cogent evidence for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable and enter....
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
