Manish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026A482/1626/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application u/s 482 rejected; applicants summoned under S.319 CrPC on informant's testimony despite earlier final report; specific allegations (Rs.70 to 80 Lacs for railway job, dishonoured cheques, deceased called on 05.01.2021 and dying after food) held prima facie sufficient; alibi plea left to trial; IO need not be examined before s.319 summons.

What did the court decide?

After going through the statement of P.W.-1 it is amply clear that he levelled specific allegations against the applicants; the trial court, after considering the allegations made in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the evidence collected by the police and the statement of P.W.-1, summoned the applicants as a prima facie offence is made out against them. ¶10 (¶37)

Manish Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13 (¶43)

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the statement of P.W.-1, notwithstanding the final report earlier filed in their favour. +3 more

¶6 (¶19)

Court's answer

¶10 (¶37)

Ratio / Principle

Considering the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of P.W.-1 recorded before the court, this Court concluded that the evidence available on record against the applicants is more than sufficient to summon them.

¶11 (¶41)

Key takeaways

The plea of alibi taken by the applicants cannot be appreciated at this stage because it is a subject matter of trial.ratio¶11 (¶38)
The argument that the Investigating Officer should have been called prior to issuing the summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable; the Investigating Officer has to be examined as a witness at the appropriate stage, but certainly not before issuing the summons against the accused.ratio¶12 (¶42)
The application is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) — Brij Raj Singh, J. — APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 1626 of 2026 — Decided February 24, 2026. Manish Kumar Yadav and another sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.197 of 2023 (State Vs. Suresh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.556 of 2021 under Sections 328, 304 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya, and of the summoning order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Faizabad, whereby they were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the application of P.W.-1 moved on 12.08.2024 during the trial of sole accused Suresh Yadav, although a final report had earlier been filed in their favour. Held, rejecting the application: (i) P.W.-1's deposition contained specific allegations against the applicants — Rs.70 to 80 Lacs allegedly given by the son of the deceased on the pretext of providing a job in the Railway Department, dishonoured cheques, and the deceased having been called by the applicants on 05.01.2021, provided food, and dying after uneasiness — and a prima facie offence was made out; the evidence on record, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was 'more than the sufficient' to summon them; (ii) the plea of alibi could not be appreciated at this stage, being a subject matter of trial; (iii) the Investigating Officer has to be examined as a witness at the appropriate stage, but certainly not before issuing the summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the accused.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1626 of 2026

¶3

Manish Kumar Yadav and another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

In Chamber

¶10

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.197 of 2023, State Vs. Suresh Yadav, arising out of Case Crime No.556 of 2021, under Sections 328, 304 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya and the summoning order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Faizabad.

¶12

It is the case of the applicants that opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R on 26.8.2021 in Case Crime No.556 of 2021, under Sections 328, 304 and 506 I.P.C at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya against three persons, including the applicants by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 18.02.2021. It is stated that on the date of alleged incident i.e. 05.01.2021, applicant no.1, who is working as Assistant Loco Pilot in the Northern Railways, was busy in his duty and he went to Prayag after making signature on attendance register at 10.30 AM and returned to Faizabad on the same day and thereafter he signed off at 9.45 PM and a certificate in this regard was issued by the Railway Department on 10.6.2022.

¶13

It is further stated that after fair and proper investigation, final report was filed in favour of the applicants as the allegations levelled against them were found to be false. It is stated that at the time of inquest and post-mortem, opposite party no.2 was present, but neither any FIR nor any complaint was filed against anyone and after a lapse of about 42 days, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved on 18.02.2021

¶14

A482 No. 1626 of 2026

¶15

¶16

after due deliberation and legal consultation.

¶17

It is further stated that the trial was proceeding against sole accused, Suresh Yadav, wherein the statement of P.W-1 (informant) was recorded before the trial court on 06.02.2024 and thereafter his cross-examination was conducted on 21.02.2024. After recording the aforesaid statement, P.W-1 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C on 12.08.2024 with mala fide intention only in order to harass and blackmail the applicants.

¶18

It is further stated that applicant no.2 lodged an F.I.R on 25.06.2020 registered at Case Crime No.440 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya against co-accused Suresh Yadav and his family members for not returning the money, which he has taken from the applicants for opening a Coaching Center.

¶19

Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court before deciding the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C, has not recorded the statement of the Investigating Officer, who after investigation, submitted the final report dropping the name of the applicants from the charge-sheet. He further submits that the trial court has not considered the entire material collected by the police and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, only on the basis of statement of P.W.-1, the applicants cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2017, Brijendra Singh and others Vs. Sate of Rajasthan , decided 27.04.2017 (Para-15).

¶20

On the other hand, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I has submitted that during the coss examination as well as in the examinationin-chief, P.W.-1 has levelled specific allegation against the applicants and has deposed before the court that on the pretext of providing job in Railway Department, son of the deceased had given Rs.70 to 80 Lacs to the applicants and when his son asked to return the said amount, the applicants denied to return the same. The deceased was also handed over various cheques by the applicants, which were dishonoured. On 05.01.2021 the deceased was called by the applicants and told him to return the amount. He came back at 11 P.M. and told his father i.e. P.W.-1

¶21

A482 No. 1626 of 2026

¶22

¶23

that applicants had provided him food and thereafter at around 3 A.M. the deceased felt uneasiness and he was taken to the District Hospital, Ayodhya, from where he was referred to the King George Medical University, Lucknow, where he died during the treatment. It is further submitted that the trial court has considered the evidence collected by the police as well as the statement of P.W.-1 and thereafter the applicants have been summoned. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the statement of P.W.-1 as well as his application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order. In support of his contention, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the a judgement of this Court rendered in Criminal Revision No.2941 of 2023, Krishnapal and anther Vs. State of U.P. and another , decided on 24.08.2023.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

For the sake of convenience, statement of P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court is quoted below:-

¶26

“ 6.2.24 पी०डब्ल 0-1

¶27

राम धवन मौयार् उम्र लगभग 50 साल पुत्र श्रीराम शब्द मौयार् िनवासी ग्राम सभा सोिफया पारा पो० महावा थाना पूराकलन्दर िजला अयोध्या ने सशपथ बयान िकया िक -

¶28

मैं खेती िकसानी करता हूँ पढ़ा िलखा नही हूँ केवल अपना दस्तखत बना लेता हूँ। उपरोक्त मुकदमे का मृतक मनीष मौयार् मेरा बेटा था। मनीष मौयार् आई०टी०आई० का छात्र था वह रेलवे की तैयाले आई०टी०आई० की तैयारी हेतु अचर्ना यादव की कोिचग सीताराम िनमर्ला िशक्षण सेवा सस्थान खोजनपुर से कोिचग करता था और तैयारी कर रहा था। मेरे बेटे का कोिचग चलाने वाली अचर्ना यादव के पित मनीष कुमार यादव से अच्छा सम्बन्ध हो गया था सुरेश यादव असीवन इनायतनगर के रहने वाले है िजन्डे अचर्ना यादव अपना मामा बताती थी। इन तीनो लोगो ने मेरे लड़के से बताया था िक सुरेश यादव मनीष कुमार यादव व अचर्ना यादव द्वारा मेरे लडके से स्वास्थ्य िवभाग में टेण्डर में पैसा लगाने के बारे में बताया था तथा स्वास्य िवभाग एवं रेलवे में नौकरी िदलाने की बात बताई थी। मेरा लडका उक्त तीनो लोगो की बातो में आकर अपने िमत्र व सगे सम्बिन्धया से िमल कर पचासो लोगो का लगभग 70 से 80 लाख रूपया मनीष यादव अचर्ना सुरेश यादव को िदला िदया था िकन्तु जब पैसा देने वालो को कोई काम या नौकरी नही िमली तो उन लोगो ने मेरे लड़के से पैसा यादव व वापस करने को कहा िजसपर मेरे लडके ने मनीष यादव , अचर्ना यादव सुरेश यादव से पैसा वापस करने की मांग िकया लेिकन ये लोग आजकल करके उसे बुलाते रहे लेिकन कोई पैसा वापस नहीं िकया। िदनांक 28.6.2018 को मनीष कुमार यादव अचर्ना यादव व सुरेश यादव ने मेरे लड़के को िवश्वास िदलाने के िलए 100 रूपये के स्टाम्प पेपर पर 30 लाख रूपया 20.7.2018 को देने के िलए िलख कर िदया था। लेिकन 20.07 2018 को पैसा न देने पर मेरे लड़के ने उपरोक्त लोगो सेपुनः पैसे की मांग की िजस पर मनीष यादव अचर्ना यादव के कहने पर सुरेन्द्र कुमार यादव द्वारा िविभन्न तारीखो में चेक मेरे लडके को ितिथ तारीखे में िविभन्न चेक दी गये थी िजसके भुगतान के िलए मेरे लडके ने बैक में िदया लेिकन उसका भुगतान नहीं हुआ। िदनांक 5.1.21 को िदन में लगभग एक बजे मनीष कुमार यादव ने अपने मोबाइल से मेरे लड़के के मोबाइल पर फोन करके उसे शाम को अपने घर पर बुलाया और कहा था वापस पैसा देगे। मेरे लडके ने शाम को मनीष यादव के यहाँ जाते हुये हम लोगो को बताकर गया िक मनीष भैया का फोन आया था मैं उनके घर जा रहा हूँ। मेरे लडके के जाने के बाद रात 11 बजे ( ग्यारह बजे ) मनीष यादव के घर से लौटकर आने पर उसके द्वारा मुझे बताया गया िक खाना खाकर आया हूँ और उसने यह भी बताया िक मनीश भैया व अचर्ना भाभी ने ज्यादा खाना िखला िदया है अब भूख नहीं है। राम में लगभग तीन बजे मेरे लडके की तबीयत अचानक खाव होने पर हम लोग उसे िजला अस्पताल अयोध्या लेकर गये जहाँ से मेरे लडके को मेिडकल कालेज लखनऊ तिबयत ज्यादा खराब होने के कारण िरफर कर िदया गया था। जहाँ पर मेिडकल कालेज में मेरे लडके की इलाज के दौरान मृत्यु हो गयी। मेरे लडके के नाखून नीले पड़े थे।

¶29

A482 No. 1626 of 2026

¶30

¶31

और मेरा लडका धार - बार यही कह रहा था िक मनीष यादव , अचर्ना यादव व उसके मामा सुरेश यादव द्वारा पैसे के बहाने से बुलाकर खाने में जहर िमलाकर िखला देने के कारण मेरी यह हालत हुई है।

¶32

उक्त घटना के सम्बन्ध में मैंने उच्चािधकािरयो को प्राथर्ना - पत्र िदया था लेिकन मेरी कही सुनवाई नही हुई तब मैंने कचेहरी जाकर अपने अिधवक्ता के माध्यन से घटना की पूरी जानकारी दी िजसपर मेरे बताने के अनुसार मेरे अिधवक्ता द्वारा एक 156 (3) प्राट पत्र न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत िकया गया उक्त प्रा० पत्र संलग्न पत्रावली का 5/7 ई ता का० सं० 53/11 है िजसे देखकर साक्षी ने कहा यह वही प्रा० पत्र है िजसे मैंने अपने अिधवक्ता से तैयार करवाया था पढकर सुनकर अपना हस्ताक्षर बनाया था िजसकी मैं पुिष्ट करता हूँ िजस पर प्रदशर् क -1 डाला गया। मेरे लड़के के का पंचायतनामा मच र ्ी हाउस लखनउ में पुिलस द्वारा िकया गया था। पंचायतनामा में भी हम लोगो ने दरोगा जी को यह बताया था िक मेरे लडके को जहरीला पदाथर् िखलाने से उसकी मृत्यु हो गई। मेरी मनीष यादव से बातचीत हुई है अचर्ना से नहीं हुई है। मेरा लडका मनीष व अचर्ना के स्कूल में पढता था। प्रा० पत्र 156 (3) के पैरा 2 में मैंने यह सही िलखाया है िक यह िक प्राथीर् का पुत्र मनीष मौयर् आई०टी०आई० का सुडेन्ट था जो मनीष कुमार यादव पुत्र सीताराम यादव िनवासी ग्राम खोजनपुर थाना को० नगर िजला अयोध्या जो रेलवे में नौकरी करते है जो कोिचग को उनकी पत्नी श्रीमत। अचर्ना यादव सीताराम िनमर्ला िशक्षण सेवा सस्थान खोजनपुर के नाम से कोिचग सेन्टर संचािलत करती है के यहाँ रेलवे आिद की प्रितयोगी परीक्षाओं की तैयार कर रहा था िजससे प्राथीर् के पुत्र मनीष कुमार यादव व उनकी पत्नी कािचग संचािलका श्रीमती अचर्ना यादव से अच्छा सम्बन्ध हो गया।

¶33

मेरे लडके ने मनीष यादव के िरश्तेदारो के बारे में नही बताया था केवल सुरेश यादव के बारे में बताया था िक वे मनीष के मामा है। .

¶34

यह कहना गलत है िक मैं पहली बार अदालत में सुरेश यादव का नाम बताया जाना हूँ।

¶35

यह भी कहना गलत है िक लखनऊ के सुरेश यादव को जानकर और पता न चलने पर अदालत में उपिस्थत अिभयुक्त को गलत फसा िदया हूँ। यह भी कहना गलत है िक हािजर अदालत अिभयुक्त को जानता पहचानता नही हूँ। िजरह समाप्त

¶36

बयान मेरे बोलने पर पर रीडर द्वारा अंिकत िकया गया। "

¶37

After going through the statement of P.W.-1, it is amply clear that he has levelled specific allegation against the applicants. P.W.-1 has deposed before the court that that on the pretext of providing job in Railway Department, son of the deceased had given Rs.70 to 80 Lacs to the applicants and when his son asked to return the said amount, the applicants denied to return the same. The deceased was also handed over various cheques by the applicants, which were dishonoured. On 05.01.2021, the deceased was called by the applicants and told him to return the amount. He came back at 11 P.M. and told his father i.e. P.W.-1 that applicants had provided him food and thereafter at around 3 A.M. the deceased felt uneasiness and he was taken to the District Hospital, Ayodhya, from where he was referred to the King George Medical University, Lucknow, where he died during the treatment. The trial court after considering the allegations made in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., evidence collected by the police as well as the statement of P.W.-1 stated herein-above, summoned the applicants as prima facie offence is made out against them.

¶38

The plea of alibi taken by the applicants cannot be appreciated at this stage because it is a subject matter of trial. After going through the record,

¶39

A482 No. 1626 of 2026

¶40

¶41

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of P.W.-1 recorded before the court, this Court comes to the conclusion that evidence available on record against the applicants is more than the sufficient to summon them.

¶42

The argument of counsel for the applicants that the investigating officer should have been called prior to issuing the summons in pursuance of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is also not sustainable. The investigating officer has to be examined as a witness at the appropriate stage, but certainly not before issuing the summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the accused.

¶43

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected.

¶44

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶45

February 24, 2026

¶46

Rao/-

¶47

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Yaswant Kumar Maurya @ Yaswant Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Prem Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Zubair and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikash and 3 Others vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and 3 Others