Allowed

Manoj Kumar Shukla and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022/1346/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order summoning the revisionists as additional accused. The revision was allowed because the trial court failed to record satisfaction of a prima facie case despite lack of cogent evidence linking the revisionists to the alleged offences.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order summoning the revisionists as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is set aside, and the revision is allowed.

Manoj Kumar Shukla and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1346 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Shukla And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Though the revision is listed peremptorily, but the learned counsel for the revisionist is not present.

¶6

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2015 'State Vs. Santosh' under Section 319 CrPC whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial as additional accused for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

PW-1 and PW-2, in their statements before the Court, have specifically stated that the deceased was living with her husband separately from other accused, though they have said that the revisionists also used to torture and harass the deceased for dowry demand of one motorcycle and one golden chain.

¶9

This Court finds the approach of the learned trial Court, in allowing the application under Section 319 CrPC, wholly against the law. There is no evidence against the accused that they were living together with the deceased and her husband. The learned trial Court has said that PW-1 and PW-2, in their statements under Section 161 CrPC, said that the revisionists also used to demand one motorcycle and one golden chain as additional dowry for which they would torture and harass, but in their deposition before the Court, they did not reiterate these allegations. For summoning a person as additional accused, there has to be cogent and credible evidence available on record. The satisfaction should be recorded of prima facie case to summon a person to face trial as an additional accused. The satisfaction should be sort of that if the evidence remains unrebutted, that would lead to conviction of the accused, who are sought to be tried as an additional accused. The trial Court has not recorded its satisfaction anywhere in the order impugned, which is wholly unsustainable.

¶10

5 In view thereof, the revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.8.2022 MVS/-

¶12

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.08.02 18:58:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Shukla and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Shukla and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Datt Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Govind Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Ekrar Alias Nankey S/O Asgar Khan (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Denesh Kumar Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Minor B/C Vs Arif Anwar Hashmi

Vinod Verma @ Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another