Dismissed

Rakesh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2023/6316/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order summoning additional accused persons. The court held that strong and cogent evidence was present to justify the summons and found no perversity in the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no interference with the impugned order.

Rakesh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6316 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajahat Ali,Kaushal Kishor,Narvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Farhan Alam Osmany

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

(C.M. Application No.IA/4 of 2023 : Delay Condonation Application in Recall Application No.IA/5 of 2023)

¶6

Heard Sri Narvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the recall application, this Court is satisfied that the delay in filing the recall application has sufÏciently been explained.

¶8

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in preferring the recall application is hereby condoned.

¶9

(C.M. Application No.IA/5 of 2023 : Recall Application)

¶10

Heard Sri Narvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶11

This application has been filed to recall the order dated 30.11.2022, passed by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J, whereby the instant application was dismissed as infructuous.

¶12

Cause shown for non-appearance on 30.11.2022, is sufÏcient.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant recall application is allowed.

¶14

The order dated 30.11.2022 is recalled and the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is restored to its original number.

¶15

(APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6316 of 2018)

¶16

Heard Sri Narvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶17

The instant application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed in application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. passed by Additional Session Judge Court No.11, Hardoi in Session Trial No.58 of 2018 in Case Crime No.34/2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 392, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Arawal, District Hardoi.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that initially a first information report came to be lodged against the six accused persons including the present applicants. However, after conclusion of the investigation, initially no charge sheet came to be submitted against the present applicants due to want of evidence against them. His further submission is that subsequently, the present applicants came to be summoned on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by means of the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 passed by learned trial Court. His further submission is that while passing the impugned order, learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of this case and also failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to, prima facie, constitute the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 392, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the

¶19

present applicants.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the law in respect of summoning any other accused person to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is clearly settled in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 .

¶21

His further submission is that the impugned order does not record the kind of satisfaction, which is a condition precedent to summon an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) and Brijendra Singh (supra) , therefore, he submits that the impugned order is palpably illegal and deserves to be set aside.

¶22

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and mainly relying on the statement of PW-1, Manphool Singh & PW-2, Gayatri, who have vividly described the role of present applicants.

¶23

His further submission is that in view of aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court has come to pass the impugned order which is well discussed and reasoned wherein no interference by this Court is warranted in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that the on the basis of evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the same is not sufÏcient to clinch conviction, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the applicants as to unavailability of

¶24

evidence which is capable of clinching conviction in the facts of this case is not tenable. He therefore, submits that the instant application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

The kind of satisfaction which is required to be recorded by the learned trial Court before summoning an accused person to face the trial in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is stated in paragraph nos.105 & 106 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) , which are quoted below:-

¶26

"105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

¶27

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that initially a first information report came to be lodged against six accused

¶29

persons including the present applicants. However, after conclusion of evidence, no charge sheet came to be submitted against the present applicants. Subsequently, it is an admitted case of the applicants that present applicants have been summoned on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶30

It is trite that even on the basis of sole reliable testimony of prosecution witness the finding of conviction can be recorded. Thus, in view of consistent stand which has been taken by the PW-1, Manphool Singh & PW-2, Gayatri in respect of role assigned to the present applicants, who, therefore, appear to have been rightly summoned to stand trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 392, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶31

Having regard to the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.09.2018, therefore, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

However, it is needless to mention that if the present applicants apply for grant of bail, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another : 2023 LL (SC) 233.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 is finally disposed of .

¶34

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 A.Dewal

¶35

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchi Singh Vs State of U.P Thru Prin. Secy Home. and Others

C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Abhishek Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sonu Alias Israk Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Ansar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Up Lko. and Another