Sumitra Devi and 2 Others vs Abdul Wahab @ Abbas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3457 of 2026

Sumitra Devi And 2 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
Abdul Wahab @ Abbas	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Jitesh Kumar Singh :

¶5

Court No. - 53

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

1. List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Jitesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the State of U.P. as a necessary respondent during the course of the day.

¶10

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners- Sumitra Devi, Bhrigunath Yadav and Jaynath Yadav, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2024 (Abdul Wahab @ Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and others). And / or issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

The facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 Smt. Sumitra Devi is the first informant of the case whereas the other two petitioners are the witnesses in the matter. The trial in the matter proceeded in which an application dated 11.02.2015 was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Abdul Wahab @ Abbas the opposite party no.1 with the prayer that the informant Sumitra Devi and her son Jaynath Yadav and her husband Bhrigunath Yadav be summoned and be tried. The said application was rejected by the trial court concerned vide order dated 12.12.2023. Against the said order a revision was preferred which was allowed vide judgement & order dated 15.02.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chandauli and the order impugned therein dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial court was set-aside. The trial court was directed to consider the matter afresh and after hearing the parties pass appropriate orders as per law on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶12

A227 No. 3457 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

The petitioners are the proposed accused.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has reached an advanced stage and at this stage considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no.1 would render the trial to be delayed and the same would not reach to its logical conclusion at the earliest. It is submitted that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved to misuse the process of law and thus the judgement & order dated 15.02.2025 of the revisional court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that he present petition for writ thus be allowed and the prayers as prayed for be granted.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, in so far as the grievance of the petitioners against the judgement & order dated 15.02.2025 is concerned, the same has no substance. The revisional court has merely remanded the matter back to the trial court concerned to hear it and decide it afresh. The petitioners are proposed accused as of now. Although the petitioner no.1 Sumitra Devi was the first informant of the matter but on the basis of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. she is a proposed accused. The petitioners could not show as to how they are prejudiced by the said order. The order of the revisional court is detailed and well considered order. No ground for interference is made out.

¶18

However, the trial court concerned is directed to expedite the hearing of the matter and comply with the judgement & order dated 15.02.2025 of the revisional court as expeditiously as possible without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.

¶19

The present petition is dismissed .

¶20

Office to communicate this order to the court concerned within one week.

¶21

March 19, 2026 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumitra Devi and 2 Others v. Abdul Wahab @ Abbas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Devi and 2 Others v. Abdul Wahab @ Abbas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Constable Satendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Niwas Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Ahuja vs State of U.P. and Another

Richcredit Finance Private Limited vs Rishabh Gupta

Gajnafar Hussain @ Gaaffar Hussasin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others