Dismissed

Poonam v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019CRLR/4335/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision allowed challenging the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court held the appeal lacked merits and refused the prayer to quash, while directing the court below to consider bail within two months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the order summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was refused. Bail application to be decided within two months if not obtained.

Poonam Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4335 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Poonam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking summoning of the record of Session Trial No. 569 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2017 (State Vs. Poonam & Another), under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Surir, District-Mathura as well as quashing of the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Mathura dated 30th September, 2019, whereby the Sessions Court while considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has summoned the revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that lower court has summoned the revisionist only on the basis of statements of the P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 without recording any sufficient reasons, which is per se illegal.

¶6

Revisionist'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 revisionist 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 revisional 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

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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) .

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Sushil/-

Poonam v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Richa Sharma and Another Vs Principal Judge and Another

Santosh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Azad Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanvej Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another