Dismissed¶15

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2025NA528/16350/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Deshwal, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 16350 of 2025, decided 9.5.2025: dismissal of applicant's challenge (quash + direction to summon) to the Sessions Trial No. 2040 of 2023 court-below order (Case Crime No. 209 of 2023, ss. 498-A, 304-B IPC and s. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sahaswan, Budaun) summoning only Musharrat under s. 319 CrPC; vague and general allegations against opposite party nos. 2-4 held insufficient; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 guideline on s. 319 satisfaction threshold relied on.

What did the court decide?

In her statement recorded before the court below as P.W.1, the applicant made specific allegations against Musharrat, which supported the summons issued against him. ¶11

Smt. Nargis vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (Crime Against Women), Budaun, which did not summon opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is illegal and ought to be quashed, and whether the court concerned should be directed to summon them. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

In her statement recorded before the court below as P.W.1, the applicant made specific allegations against Musharrat, which supported the summons issued against him.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

As regards opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, there was no specific allegation in P.W.1's statement which could be sufficient to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Key takeaways

Adopting the guidelines laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the Court held that summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires satisfaction which is more than a prima facie case though short of the level sufficient for conviction.ratio¶11
On perusal of P.W.1's statement, only absolutely vague and general allegations had been made against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, which were not sufficient to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.ratio¶13
This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 2040 of 2023.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 75), Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. | Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 16350 of 2025 | Smt. Nargis (Applicant) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others | Decided 9.5.2025. The applicant sought (i) quashing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 2040 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2023, u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun) to the extent it did not summon opposite party nos. 2 to 4, and (ii) direction to summon them. Background: F.I.R. lodged against 7 persons; charge-sheet filed against only 3 (Subhan, Bablu, Ujma); after P.W.1's statement, a Section 319 Cr.P.C. application sought addition of Musharrat, Aghaz @ Akash, Arisha and Umara; the court below summoned only Musharrat. Held (ratio): summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires satisfaction more than a prima facie case though short of conviction-level certainty, per the guidelines laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; P.W.1 made specific allegations against Musharrat, whereas the allegations against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 were absolutely vague and general and insufficient for a Section 319 summons. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the application was dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75946

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16350 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Nargis Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 2040 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2023 u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sahaswan, District- Budaun to the extent as not to summoning the rest of the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in this case. A further request has been made to direct the court concerned to summon the rest of the accused persons i.e. the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in this case for facing the trial of the aforesaid case.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant had lodged an F.I.R. against 7 persons including opposite party nos. 2 to 4 but the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet only against 3 persons, namely, Subhan, Bablu and Ujma. Thereafter, during the trial, after recording the statement of P.W.1, application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the remaining four accused, namely,

¶9

Musharrat, Aghaz @ Akash, Arisha and Umara but the court below partly allowed the application of the applicant and summoned only Musharrat but did not summon opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 though there is sufficient material to summon the private respondents.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as accused, Musharrat was summoned on the basis of material given before the court through P.W.1. However, there was no specific allegation against the other persons and for that reason, they were not summoned.

¶11

After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that applicant in her statement recorded before the court below as P.W.1 made specific allegations against Musharrat and so far as opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, there was no specific allegation which could be sufficient to summon them u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as summoning a person u/s 319 Cr.P.C. requires satisfaction which is more than prima facie case though not upto the level sufficient for conviction. The Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for summoning a person u/s 319 Cr.P.C. in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 wherein the Apex Court observed that the object of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to punish real culprit and the Apex Court further observed that degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence if not rebutted may lead to conviction of person

¶12

sought to be added as accused.

¶13

From the perusal of statement of P.W.1, it is clear that absolutely vague and general allegation has been made against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 which is not sufficient to summon them u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 2040 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2023 u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sahaswan, District- Budaun.

¶15

The present application is accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 KS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gautam Kumar and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Sataya Prakash and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhat vs State of U.P. and Another

Boudh Saran Alias Buddha vs State of U.P.

Anurag Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Agarwal vs State of Up and Another