Santram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024CRLR/256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A revision challenging the summons issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to the revisionists only on basis of complainant's statement. The court noticed the constitutional issue, issued notice to opposite party, and stayed the impugned order as an interim measure.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the operation and implementation of the impugned order summoning the revisionists pending disposal.

Santram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 256 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Santram And Another

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Singh,Dheeraj Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Amar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶8

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionists have challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4/Special Judge E.C. Act, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No.1178 of 2022: State Vs. Rohit Lodhi and others, arising out of Case Crime No.139 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Asoha, District Unnao, whereby the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial for the aforesaid offences.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that during investigation the complainant had stated about the revisionists' involvement in commission of offence but no other witness had supported the allegation. Therefore, after investigation the Investigating Officer had submitted a charge sheet in which the revisionists name were not included as accused persons.

¶10

The learned trial court had taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of averments made in the charge sheet and the complainant had not filed any protest application. After the

¶11

learned trial court recorded statements of 8 prosecution witnesses, 3 of whom were formal witnesses and 5 were witnesses of fact. Except for the complainant no other witness of fact has stated about involvement of the revisionists in the commission of offence.

¶12

In these circumstances, the only material alleging involvement of the revisionists in commission of offence was the statement of the complainant and which was the same as the statement given by him to the Investigating Officer.

¶13

Without any further material having been placed supporting the involvement of the revisionists in commission of the offence, the learned trial court has summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. The learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan: (2017) 7 SCC 706 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was affirmed by the High Court and allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of same material, which was there during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also.

¶14

7. The matter requires consideration.

¶15

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶16

Steps for service of notice shall be taken by the applicants within three days' from today.

¶17

The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within two weeks. In case counter affidavit is filed, the applicants shall file

¶18

rejoinder affidavit, if any, within one week thereafter.

¶19

List this case in the week commencing 29.04.2024.

¶20

As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4/Special Judge E.C. Act, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No.1178 of 2022: State Vs. Rohit Lodhi and others, arising out of Case Crime No.139 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. Police Station Asoha, District Unnao qua the revisionists shall remain stayed.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Ram.

¶23

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

Santram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Throu Its Branch Manager Vs Manoj Kumar Yadav and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Throu Its Branch Manager Vs Jwala Prasad and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Throu Its Branch Manager Vs Smt. Sucheeta Alias Nanka Devi and Ors.

Shyam Narain @ Puran Chand Vs State of U.P. and Others

Akbar Ali and 7 Others Vs Shyam Ji Tiwari and 5 Others

Alok Kumar Pandey Vs Satya Prakash Tiwari and Others