Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Court held evidence justified summoning applicant as additional accused. Bail directed to be decided below within two months.
Prayer to quash impugned order refused. Directed to apply for bail in lower court within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40975 of 2019
Applicant :- Jayram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Khanna,Amber Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The factual controversies have been raised and certain submissions which are more in the nature of ultimate defence that the accused may finally take to show their innocence, have also been made. The plea that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated, has also been taken. Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness which may persuade this Court to interfere in either of the impugned orders. There is no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been appreciated in right perspective. The relevant law also have been taken into consideration by the lower court. This Court also does not see any such element of perversity in either of the impugned orders. The evidence has been produced during the course of trial appears to have been sufficient to justify the summoning of the applicant as additional accused. There does not appear to be any element of perversity in the impugned orders. As per law that has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court's in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92 , though the standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is on a different footing than the standard of sufficiency that would justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. But that does not go to mean that the standard to justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be the same which is required to be employed at the time of final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of an accused. Considerations to summon an accused to face trial are different from the considerations which should ultimately vindicate the conviction of an accused. In the present matter in hand it cannot be said that the evidence as was available on record does not justify the summoning of the revisionist as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or that the ratio and the guidelines as have been provided by the Apex Court in its decision given in the case of Hardeep Singh's case (supra), have not been followed.
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Order Date :- 25.11.2019 JK Yadav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in an order summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. when sufficient material justifies the addition.
Whether the court can observe directions regarding bail for the applicant while dismissing the application to quash the summons order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P.Referred¶6
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶6
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC.)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayram Singh
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
