Dismissed

Chheddi @ Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021CRLR/3233/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision filed by an accused person. The revisionist challenged a summons issued by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C., arguing it was based solely on examination-in-chief without cross-examination. The court held summoning based on examination-in-chief is legal and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by the revisionist was dismissed.

Chheddi @ Anita Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3233 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Chheddi @ Anita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Fatehpur in S.T. No.840 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2020, under Sections 304, 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur, whereby learned trial court summoned the revisionist to face trial along with other co-accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the present revision has been filed only on the ground that the revisionist was summoned by the trial court merely on the basis of examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar, therefore, summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. passed against revisionist is bad, as without cross examination, the trial court should not summon the revisionist.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the law is now well settled that even on the basis of examination-in-chief, an accused person can be summoned, therefore, there is no merit in the case and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

The only contention which was raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was summoned only on the basis of examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar, therefore, impugned order is illegal as without cross examination revisionist cannot be summoned. No other argument was raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶10

The examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar, which is annexed at page no.88 of the revision shows that he specifically disclosed the name of the revisionist along with other co-

¶11

accused persons, who caused injuries and law is well settled that on the basis of examination-in-chief, an accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another (2021) 5 SCC 337 in paragraph no. 13.2 observed that from the case of Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 92, it emerges that the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even on the basis of statement made in examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross examination of said witness. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 and present revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 AK Pandey

Chheddi @ Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chheddi @ Anita 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Atri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Deivi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others