Anand Kumar Rai @ Sonu Rai and Another vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Anand Kumar Rai @ Sonu Rai and Another vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Main prayer to set aside the summoning order and revisional judgment refused; petitioners granted liberty to move a discharge application within 30 days, to be decided by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks thereafter; no coercive measures against the petitioners for 30 days or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the summoning order dated 12.12.2022 and the revisional judgment dated 31.08.2024 should be set aside, i.e., whether no offence is made out against the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners; the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.

Key takeaways

The Article 227 power may be exercised only where the Court finds failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or that the sentence or order was not correct, to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.ratio¶9
If the petitioners move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel within 30 days, the Trial Court shall dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) disposed of an Article 227 petition by Anand Kumar Rai @ Sonu Rai and another challenging (i) the summoning order dated 12.12.2022 of the civil judge (J.D) F.T.C/Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Criminal Misc. Case No. 21 of 2022 summoning them under Sections 379, 506, 327 I.P.C., and (ii) the judgment dated 31.08.2024 of the Session judge, Mau in Criminal Revision No. 288 of 2023 affirming the summoning order. Holding that the matter involved disputed questions of fact not amenable to Article 227 adjudication, and that the power may be exercised only to prevent failure of justice, misuse of procedure or miscarriage of justice, the Court refused the prayer for setting aside the orders. However, the petitioners were permitted to move a discharge application within 30 days, to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks, and were protected from coercive measures for 30 days or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133786

Court No. - 85

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 551 of 2025

Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Rai @ Sonu Rai And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Srivastava,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. To, Set-aside the impugned judgement and order, dated 31.08.2024 , passed by Session judge, District - Mau, in Criminal revision Number- 288 of 2023 (Anand Rai and another versus state of U.P. and another) and order dated 12.12.2022 , passed by the civil judge (J.D) F.T.C/Judicial Magistrate, District-Mau, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case Number- 21 of 2022 (Anup Kumar Rai versus Anand Rai and Another) whereby the trial court summoned the applicant/petitioners under section 379, 506, 327, I.P.C. for face the trial and revisional court affirm the order of trial court by rejecting the criminal revision of petitioner."

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is refused.

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioners move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel within 30 days, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

For a period of 30 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Aditya Tripathi

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad