Vishnu Dev Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vishnu Dev Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 03.04.2024 of the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot set aside (quashed), revision allowed, without expressing opinion on merits; informant/revisionist left free to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.04.2024 of the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot dismissing the informant/complainant's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by which two prospective accused were sought to be summoned, should be upheld or interfered with. +1 more

Court's answer

It shall remain open to the informant/revisionist to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 03.04.2024 was passed on the footing that the chargesheet/police report had been submitted and the investigation was pending; since the correct fact had not been brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The order dated 03.04.2024 of the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot is set aside and the revision is allowed with the aforesaid observation.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 2081 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Harvir Singh, J.; decided September 18, 2025) — ALLOWED. Vishnu Dev Dwivedi (informant/complainant) revised against the order dated 03.04.2024 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot in S.S.T. No. 26 of 2022 (State vs. Smriti Dwivedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., whereby the informant's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of two prospective accused had been rejected. The Court found the impugned order was based on the premise that the chargesheet/police report had been submitted and the investigation was going on, whereas the correct fact had not been brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge; accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order dated 03.04.2024 was set aside and the revision allowed, with liberty to the informant/revisionist to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Counsel: Ramanuj Yadav for the revisionist; Anil Kumar Pandey, Faizan Siddiqui and G.A. for the opposite parties.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2081 of 2024

Vishnu Dev Dwivedi

.....Revisionist(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ramanuj Yadav : Anil Kumar Pandey, G.A.	Faizan Siddiqui,

Court No. - 93

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the Court today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot in S.S.T. No. 26 of 2022 (State vs. Smriti Dwivedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District-Chitrakoot, whereby the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot has rejected the application of the revisionist filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the application moved by the informant / complainant, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot. By the said application two prospective accused were brought to be summoned. He next submitted that the order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act is based on incomplete and wrong facts and that's why the learned trial Court has reached at a different conclusion, as much as it has been found that the investigation in respect of prospective accused persons is in progress and chargesheet / police report is yet to be filed and therefore, at this stage no interference can be called by the trial Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that it is a matter of record that the investigation in the said case crime, as far as opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are concerned is complete and subsequent to the investigation, a final report

CRLR No. 2081 of 2024

2

has been submitted in respect of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and their names have been dropped during the course of investigation. He further submitted that as far as the witnesses of fact are concerned, the testimony of all the witnesses of fact has been completed.

Having regard to the fact that the order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot is based on the fact that the chargesheet / police report was submitted at the relevant point of time and the investigation was going on and based on said fact of pending investigation, the said order dated 03.04.2024 has been passed. Since the correct fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, it shall remain open to the informant / revisionist to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Act, 1989, Chitrakoot is hereby set aside and the revision is allowed with the aforesaid observation.

(Harvir Singh,J.)

September 18, 2025 Faridul

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad