Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024A482/6762/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 challenging a trial court order summoning the applicant as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC after his name was dropped in the charge-sheet. The court found the matter requires consideration, issued notice, and stayed further proceedings in the sessions trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6762 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pandey,Anand Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Nayak

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶4

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that out of sudden an incident was taken place in between the informant and family members of the applicant. The applicant was not present at the time and place of the occurrence as he was studying in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Faizabad. Submission of learned counsel for applicant is that as the applicant was not present at the place of incident, the Investigating Officer on the basis of evidence collected by him during the course of investigation dropped the name of the applicant and the charge-sheet was submitted against five persons. Thereafter, the complainant of the present case filed an application under Section 319 CrPC praying therein that named but not charge-sheeted prospective accused, namely, Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku (applicant herein) be summoned to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial. However, court below upon evaluation and examination of the allegations made in the application under Section 319 CrPC allowed the said application. He further submitted that the court below on the basis of deposition of the complainant/informant before court below and on the basis of statement of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC allowed the application and has failed to consider the finding recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that a direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 whereby summoning order was set aside and the trial court was directed to decide the application under Section 319 CrPC after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back but again stereo type order was passed by the court below.

¶5

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the issue in between the parties was already settled and a compromise was filed before court below and the contents of the compromise was verified. He further submitted that the applicant was selected as a teacher therefore complainant of the present case started bargaining. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon a judgement of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1268 of 2022 (Sanjay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar And 2 others Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another) in which this Court has observed that on the basis of general allegations,

¶6

application under Section 319 CrPC cannot be allowed. The trial court should record a satisfaction relying on much stronger evidence than mere probability of the complicity of the accused and the test that has to be applied, there should be more than a prima facie case available against the accused.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the court below has rejected the discharge application of the applicant and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. He further submitted that going through the contents of the impugned order as well as other relevant documents it reveals that as the applicant was named in the FIR but his name was dropped by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the evidence collected by him during course of investigation but, thereafter, again during the course of trial in view of the deposition of the informant before court below and the statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the court below allowed the application under Section 319 CrPC and summoned the applicant to face trial.

¶8

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record and the law laid down by the two Judges' Bench's judgment of the Apex Court in Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706 , wherein it has been held that a prospective accused cannot be summoned simply on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only when something more than mere complicity of prospective accused has emerged against the prospective accused, the Court is under a legal obligation to examine (a) the evidence that has emerged during the course of investigation; (b) as to whether the witness in his deposition before the Court has stated something new which is different from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and (c) whether on the basis of said material, something more than mere complicity of a prospective accused that has emerged in the crime in question, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶9

Issue notice to opposite party 2.

¶10

List this case on 29.11.2024.

¶11

Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.211 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., police statin Kotwali Tanda, district Ambedkar Nagar, shall remain stayed.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.10.2024. Rks.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Rinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Prasad Tiwari and Others vs Sri Surya Pal Gangwar, Collector, Lko. and Others

Raju Thru. Power of Attorney Nishant Singh vs Manjula Mishra, Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Lalganj, Rae Bareli

Abhishek Sharma vs Shri Surya Pal Gangwar, D.M. / Collector, Lko.

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal vs Civil Judge Junior Division Lalganj Distt. Pratapgarh and Another

Monu and 2 Others Vs Addl. District Judge Court No. 10,LKO. and Another

Smt. Madhuri Singh Vs the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. and Another