The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order summoning the applicant as an additional accused. The Court held the lower court did not act perversely and the evidence justified the summoning.
Application to quash the summoning order was refused; bail to be applied for 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. - 45853 of 2019
Applicant :- Khurseed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated summoning order dated 11th October, 2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Sahranpur, thereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 2015 (State Vs. Gufran & Others), under Sections 364/511 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that lower court has summoned the revisionist only on the basis of statements of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 without recording any sufficient reasons, which is per se illegal.
Applicant's counsel has also tried to point out certain infirmities in the evidence which has been made the basis to summon the accused-applicants under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 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-revisionist 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 revisionist 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.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the application has no merits and there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order. The prayer to quash the impugned order is therefore, refused.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-revisionist may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Sushil/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to quash the order summoning the applicant as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Whether the evidence available is sufficient to justify the summoning of the applicant rather than waiting for final adjudication of guilt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and othersExplained¶8
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¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Khurseed
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
