Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3640

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Hamid and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. - 4925 of 2024
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, M.N. Singh, Mahesh Narain Singh, Satya
Prakash Rai, Vimlendu Tripathi
For the Respondent: G.A., Sushil Dubey

The power to summon under Section 319 CrPC requires clear prima facie evidence, considering witness credibility, and must comply with previous judicial directives without undue haste.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 319, 397, and 401 - Criminal Revision against order summoning applicants to face trial - Applicants challenged the Sessions Court's order allowing application under Section 319 CrPC - The Findings recorded that there was undue haste in passing the order, failing to consider the Supreme Court's directive which left the merits open for trial - The Sessions Court's conclusions ignored prior orders and independent witness testimonies. (Paras 8, 11, 16, 29)

(B) Legal principles on summoning under Section 319 CrPC - The court must assess if a prima facie case is established based on presented evidence, including cross-examinations pertaining to witness credibility and involvement. (Paras 29, 30)

(C) The role of the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP clarified that such dismissal does not imply a view on merits, leaving room for re-evaluation by the Sessions Court. (Paras 19, 34)

Facts of the case:
Applicants sought to contest their summoning order related to a murder case stemming from events on 19.05.2020, where their names were previously expunged following investigation. The Sessions Court allowed a subsequent application to summon them based on the interpretation of witness statements and prior Court rulings considered dismissive.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Sessions Court had acted hastily and had failed to appropriately consider earlier directives and implications of witness statements that did not support summoning.

Issues: The principal questions revolved around procedural adherence in evaluating witness credibility, suitable standards for summoning under Section 319, and the procedural importance given previous court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to set legal standards during procedural evaluations and concluded that proper due diligence must be followed, particularly with reference to existing Supreme Court interpretations.

Result: Revision allowed.

Table of Content
1. revision under crpc challenging summoning order. (Para 2 , 4)
2. reassessment of evidence required for summoning. (Para 8 , 14)
3. arguments for applicants challenge haste in order issuance. (Para 11 , 12)
4. supreme court's dismissal clarified non-opinion on merits. (Para 19 , 23)
5. revision allowed; fresh order required from sessions court. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Gaurav Kumar Srivastava and Shri Satya Prakash Rai, Advocates appearing for the applicants in revision, Shri Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2.

2. The present revision under Section 397 /401 CrPC has been filed by three persons challenging the order dated 17.08.2024 whereby an application 133-Kha filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 319 CrPC has been allowed by the Sessions Court and the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302, 307, 352, 504 IPC in S.T. No. 574 of 2020 ( State Vs. Abubakar and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2020, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut.

3. The case has a long history and various proceedings right from lodging of FIR till passing of the order impugned and even subsequent thereto, need reference in a chronological manner.

4. In relation to an incident of murder occurred on 19.05.2020, a First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 20.42 hours indicating occurrence at 19.30 hours. Ten (10) persons were named in the FIR and name of one person, namely, Niyaz was added during investigation, bringing the total number of accused to eleven (11). The applicants, though named in the FIR, their names were expunged during the course of investigation as their presence on the spot was not found. As a result thereof, charge sheet was submitted only against 8 persons.

5. When the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, an application was moved by opposite party no. 2 requesting summoning of the applicants mentioning that their names were wrongly expunged. The said application was disposed of by order dated 09.07.2020 by referring to the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC indicating as to whether the applicants had aided in commission of crime or not, the same was a matter of trial which would be considered after evidence is led.

6. After the matter was committed to the court of Session, another application (6-Kha) was moved by opposite party no. 2 praying for summoning of the applicants, however, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court by order dated 13.05.2022 observing that no additional facts had been brought on record. Thereafter, charges were framed and when examination-in-chief of PW-1 commenced on 06.07.2022 and concluded on 05.12.2022, in the meantime, another application under Section 319 CrPC was moved on 19.09.2022 containing the same prayer for summoning the applicants to face trial. An order was passed by the trial court on 24.02.2023 deferring consideration of the said application till recording of evidence of other witnesses of fact. The said application is said to be still pending.

7. Thereafter, evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 was recorded and before cross examination of PW-3 could be concluded, another application (95- Kha) dated 25.07.2023 was moved by opposite party no. 2 making same prayer for summoning the applicants. The application was opposed by the charge-sheeted accused by filing objections dated 29.08.2023 and, by an order dated 09.10.2023, the same was rejected by the Sessions Court on merits.

8. Opposite party no. 2, being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2023, approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 5780 of 2023 ( Ajwar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others ), which was allowed by order dated 08.07.2024, setting aside the order dated 09.10.2023 with a direction to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in