Allowed

Suresh Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2025CRLP/20356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of summons for 304-A IPC after a worker died of electrocution during construction work. The Court noted the complainant's own admission of no grievance and the accidental cause of death, and quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 25.06.2019, revisional order dated 14.02.2020 and entire proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20356 of 2021

¶3

Suresh Singh And Anr.

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And Anr.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Brijesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Rama Niwas Pathak

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/complainant and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

¶12

By means of instant petition, petitioners namely Suresh Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh impleading Mansharam/opposite party No.2 have sought following main relief:-

¶13

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Room No.11, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No. 158/2019 and order dated 25.06.2019, passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Complaint No. 9964/2018, as well as the entire proceedings pending before the Learned Court Below, in respect of the petitioners, which are contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition."

¶14

For the purposes of causing interference in the matter before this Court following facts have been indicated:-

¶15

(i) On 22.02.2018 deceased Rajendra S/o Mansharam was involved in the construction work of the house of one Maniram situated in the same village of which the opposite party No. 2 is the resident.

¶16

(ii) The deceased while doing construction work touched the 11 KV Line passing from the roof of house of Mani Ram and therefore he died. Thus, cause of death is electrocution.

¶17

(iii) With regard to aforesaid incident, a report dated 20.03.2018 was submitted by one Rajendra Kumar, Police Officer of P.S.-Kumarganj,

¶18

CRLP No. 20356 of 2021

¶19

¶20

District-Faizabad now Ayodhya (annexed as Annexure No. 4) and a perusal thereof would indicate that Rajendra S/o of the complainant died on account of electrocution. The report referred is extracted here-in-under:-

¶21

" िरपोट थाना क� मारगु ंज जनपद फजाबादै

¶22

सेवा म�,

¶23

�यायालय �ीमान सी०जे०एम० महोदय फैजाबाद

¶24

िवषयः- आवेदक �ी मंशाराम S/o जग�प R/o पासी का पुरवा H/o ितदौली थाना कुमारगंज जनपद फैजाबाद �ारा िदये गये अ�तग�त धारा 156 (3) सी०आर०पी०सी० �ाथ�ना-प� के स�ब�ध म� आ�या।

¶25

महोदय,

¶26

िनवेदन है िक मुझ एस०आई० �ारा गाँव म� जाकर जानकारी की गयी तो �ात �आ िक �ी मंशाराम S/o जग�प िनवासी पासी का पुरवा H/o ितदौली थाना कुमारगंज जनपद फैजाबाद का सबसे छोटा पु� राजे�� िदनांक 22.2.018 को गांव म� ही मनीराम S/o सदल के नये बन रहे मकान पर मज�री करने के िलए 1- िम��ी भगवान दीन S/o राम जस िनवासी ितदौली 2- िम��ी होरीलाल S/o �याम पासी R/o पासी का पुरवा H/o ितदौली 3- राम सुिमरन S/o महराजदीन R/o पासी का पुरवा H/o ितदौली 4- साई लाल S/o हरभजन R/o छेदी का पुरवा H/o कटघरा थाना कुमारगंज जनपद फैजाबाद के साथ गया था काम करने के दौरान राजे�� ारा लोहे का पाइप हटाते समय असावधानी के कारण पास म� 11000 बो�टेज के तार म� छूने के कारण कर�ट लगने से राजे�� की मृ�यु हो गयी साथ म� काम कर रहे मज�रो के सहयोग से राजे�� को क�बा कुमारगंज ि�थत डा० वमा� �लीिनक पर लाया गया था जहाँ डा० वमा� �ारा, राजे�� को मृत घोिषत कर िदया गया पो�ट माट�म न कराने की िनयत से िबना पुिलस को सूचना िदये राजे�� के पिरवारी जनो �ारा िर�तेदार� एवं गांव वालो की उपि�थित म� शव का दाह सं�कार कर िदया गया थाना हाजा के रिज�टर के अवलोकन से इस स�ब�ध म� कोई अिभयोग पंजीकृत नही है।

¶27

िरपोट� सादर सेवा म� �ेिषत है।"

¶28

(iv) After the aforesaid incident, cremation of body of the deceased was carried out with the consent of complainant/Mansharam and in this regard, an application was also submitted before S.H.O., P.S.-Kumarganj, DistrictFaizabad now Ayodhya (annexed as Annexure No. 5) signed by Mansharam and other villagers. The application referred is extracted here-in-under:-

¶29

" सेवा म�,

¶30

�ीमान थाना�य� महोदय

¶31

थाना कुमारगंज फैजाबाद।

¶32

महोदय,

¶33

िनवेदन है िक �ाथ� म�शाराम प� जग�प ु िनवासी �ाम पूरे पासी ित�दौली पो० िबरौली XXX तहसील िम�कीपुर थाना कुमारगंज का मूल िनवासी �ँ। �ाथ� का लडका राजे�� पु� म�शाराम को कल िदनांक 22.02.2018 िदन बृह�पितवार �ाथ� के ही गांव के मनीराम पु� सदल के यहाँ घर बनवा रहा था। इनके घर के ऊपर स जा रहे । े 1100 बे�ट के िव�त तार सु �ाथ� के े ल�के का हाथ छ गया िजससू उसकी मौके पर मे �यृ हो गयी।ु तथा मरी अने मित सु ही े मरे े लडके का दाह स�कार कराया गया। िजसमं � हम िकसी भी �कार की कोई आपि� नही हे ।ै

¶34

CRLP No. 20356 of 2021

¶35

¶36

अतः �ीमान जी से िनवेदन है िक महोदय के सं�ान जो भी िकसी �ि� ने गलत सूचना दी है। वह गलत है। हमे दोनो लोगो के आपस म� िकसी �कार की कोई भी िशकायत नही है।"

¶37

Based upon the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that after cremation of the deceased, the opposite party No.2 with ulterior motive instituted a complaint case dated 14.03.2018 (annexed at page No. 20 to 22 of the present petition), which also indicates that the petitioners have not committed any offence.

¶38

Thereafter, C.J.M., Faizabad now Ayodhya (in short 'Magistrate') vide order dated 25.06.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 9964 of 2018 (Mansharam vs. Maniram and Others) summoned the petitioners and a perusal of order dated 25.06.2019 would indicate that the Magistrate has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its true spirit, including the facts related to the signature on blank paper taken forcefully by the petitioners. A perusal of the complaint would also indicate that alleged paper was subsequently received by the opposite party No.2/complainant.

¶39

It is also stated that being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate dated 25.06.2019, petitioners instituted Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2019. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Faizabad now Ayodhya (in short 'Revisional Court') dismissed the revision vide order dated 14.02.2020 and affirmed the order of the Magistrate dated 25.06.2019, whereby the Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face the trial for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

¶40

In the instant case, from the material available on record as also from own admission of Mansharam/opposite party No. 2 no offence including the offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against the petitioners. Prayer is to cause interference and allow the petition.

¶41

Sri R.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/complainant and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State opposed the present petition.

¶42

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶43

Upon due consideration of aforesaid particularly the cause of death i.e. electrocution due to touching power line, indicated by opposite party No. 2/complainant (Mansharam) himself, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in issue is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is

¶44

CRLP No. 20356 of 2021

¶45

¶46

allowed.

¶47

The impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2019 and the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 9964 of 2018 as well as the entire proceedings pending before the Court concerned against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶48

Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned for necessary actions.

¶49

November 11, 2025 Vinay/-

¶50

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶51

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

Suresh Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Reva Nitin Jaiswal Thru Friend Father Nitin Jiawal Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Ms. Inaya Khan and Another Thru. Mother Shahida Jamal Siddiqui Vs Daud Khan and Another

Pramod Kumar Misra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow and 3 Others

Munna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ravi Ranjan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

Satyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others