Criminal revision against a trial court order summoning revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and a non-bailable warrant in a murder case. Court directed counter affidavit and rejoinder, listed for January 2025, and kept the non-bailable warrant in abeyance till then.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1408 of 2024
Revisionist :- Bilal Ahmad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh,Umang Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manik Mishra,Ramakar Shukla,B/R0865
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Sri Ram Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Manik Mishra and Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists to assail the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No.1, Sultanpur in S.T. No.210 of 2022, State vs. Iqbal Husain @ Balu and others, in case crime no.305 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 435 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kurwar, District Sultanpur as well as non-bailable warrant dated 23.10.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 has come to be passed by the learned trial court without appreciating the fact that the statements of various witnesses, recorded during the investigation, reveal that the present revisionists did not commit the offence in question.
His further submission is that even one of the injured has not stated anything about the role of the present revisionists. Additionally, he submits that the impugned order does not record the kind of satisfaction required to summon an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 3 SCC 92. He further submits that the learned trial court has also failed to record satisfaction to the extent that the evidence against the present revisionists is more than what is required for framing the charges and on the basis of which, conviction of the revisionists is possible. Thus, in aforesaid view of the matter, he submits that the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 is palpably illegal and deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionists by submitting that the learned trial Court has rightly entertained an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the behest of first informant and being satisfied as to availability of sufficient material to proceed against the revisionists. Thus, the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial by means of the impugned summoning order dated 23.10.2024. They, therefore, submit that the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of record, the matter requires
consideration.
6. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
7. A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.
8. List in the week commencing 13.01.2025, as fresh.
9. Till the next date of listing, the non-bailable warrant dated 23.10.2024, issued against the revisionists, shall be kept in abeyance.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 3.12.2024 A.Dewal
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording requisite satisfaction is illegal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and OthersRelied on
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Opposite Party No. 2
Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
