Dismissed

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2020CRLR/1680/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, High Court of UP dismissed petition challenging order summoning petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Bench held that petitioner could not show error in lower court's satisfaction that materials justified summons despite petitioner being exonerated from inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; coercive measures stayed if petitioner surrenders within three weeks; no implied bail direction.

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Pratap Singh Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1680 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Shiv Pratap Singh @ Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

¶6

The instant revision has been preferred challenging order dated 28.01.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No.398 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.189 of 2018, under Sections 323/34, 504 and 302/34 IPC, Police Station-Jasrana, District-Firozabad, whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by informant/complainant Pankaj has been allowed.

¶7

Record reveals that in the FIR, revisionist Shiv Pratap Singh alias Pratap Singh was named as an accused. During investigation revisionist has been exonerated and no charge sheet has been submitted against him. Feeling aggrieved informant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying for summoning the revisionist. This application was allowed by the Court below with an observation that after considering depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 and perusing the record, there were sufficient materials on the record to summon the revisionist.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that

¶9

revisionist is an old person aged about 68 years and no direct role has been assigned to him during commission of the crime. He further submitted that revisionist had no motive to commit such crime and he had not participated in commission of the crime.

¶10

I have very carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. After examining the materials available on record, I find that no case is made out for interference by this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

¶11

Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. There is also no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same which appears to have been passed after due application of judicial mind. All the facts and circumstances of the case have been appreciated in right perspective and even the law point on the issue has been duly discussed. It is true that summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to in a cavalier or casual manner. The standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is on much higher footing than the sufficiency of evidence which may persuade the court to summon an accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. but it does not go to mean that the standard of sufficiency of evidence in order to justify the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be of the same level which is required to be applied at the time of final adjudication on the point of

¶12

guilt and innocence of an accused. The ratio and obiter as laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 , does not appear to have been ignored in this case.

¶13

The aforesaid judgment in fact lay down very clearly that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by Court against a person not named in First Information Report or no charge sheet is filed by police against him and the accused can be summoned only on the basis of examination-in-chief of witness and need not wait for cross-examination etc. With regard to degree of satisfaction of Court for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., Court has said that test are same as applicable for framing charge.

¶14

There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders in question which is hereby affirmed and the instant revision is dismissed.

¶15

However, in case the revisionist surrenders and moves a bail application within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible by the concerned Courts below bearing in mind the various propositions of law and guidelines laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time through various pronouncements. Till then, no coercive measures shall be taken against the revisionist in the above mentioned case.

¶16

It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as an implied direction of this Court to grant bail to the

¶17

revisionist. The bail prayer shall be considered by the Court concerned strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, this revision is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.10.2020 Manish Himwan

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Yadav Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachchan Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Wahab Vs State of U.P.