Dismissed¶15

Vinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2026CRLR/1516/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court criminal revision CRLR No. 1516 of 2026 (decided April 21, 2026, Manoj Bajaj, J.) - dismissal of complaint's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused in abetment of suicide case under Section 306 I.P.C.; power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires evidence making out a strong case more than prima facie; trial court's refusal to summon opposite party no. 2 upheld; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the cross-examination of the material witnesses, the evidence recorded during trial falls short of the required standard of making out a strong case more than prima facie suggesting involvement of opposite party no. 2 in commission of the crime, so as to justify exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ¶13

Vinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1516 of 2026

¶2

Vinesh Kumar

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 85

¶5

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶6

Petitioner-complainant has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad in S.T. No. 877 of 2022 (State versus Amar Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1430 of 2020 under Section 306 I.P.C. Police Station-Majhola, District-Moradabad, whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of opposite party no.2 as an additional accused has been dismissed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has argued that though the opposite party no. 2-Sonu, brother-in-law of the deceased-Vipin was named in the F.I.R. along with his father-Amarpal and sister-Arti @ Manisha (wife of the deceased) in respect of an occurrence resulting in death of Vipin, whereupon initially the F.I.R. was registered under Section 304 I.P.C. etc., but subsequently after investigation, the name of opposite party no. 2-Sonu was deleted, and the chargesheet was filed against Amar Pal and Arti @ Manisha for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that after commencement of trial, material witnesses including the complainant Vinesh (P.W.-1) and Smt. Indresh (P.W.-2) were examined and the said evidence recorded during trial would reveal involvement of opposite party no. 2 in the alleged crime also, therefore, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning him as an additional accused. He submits that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 18.09.2025, and the same is not sustainable. He submits that once the prosecution witnesses have clearly narrated about the involvement of

¶8

CRLR No. 1516 of 2026

¶9

¶10

opposite party no. 2, the trial court ought to have summoned him as an additional accused on the basis of the settled law on the subject. He prays that impugned order be set aside and his application be allowed.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, particularly, the testimony of P.W.-1 Vinesh-complainant, three days before the death of Vipin, Amarpal along with Sonu had come to his house, when wife of deceased accompanied them and went to her parental home. As per the prosecution case, when the husband-Vipin went to bring his wife back there was some altercation, and after returning home Vipin died of poison and the chargesheet was filed against Amarpal and Arti for alleged commission of offence of abetment of suicide.

¶12

A reading of evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 would show that the victim on reaching home informed the complainant about humiliation faced by him at the house of the opposite party no. 2, and further it is deposed by the complainant that the victim either was administered poison or he himself consumed the poison, which resulted in his death.

¶13

It is the case of the complainant that his brother had gone to bring his wife back, therefore, the primary grievance of the husband would be against the wife, who refused to join his company and chargesheet was filed against the wife and her father. The evidence recorded during trial may echoe the voice of F.I.R., but considering the totality of the circumstances and the cross examination of these material witnesses, this Court finds that the evidence recorded during trial falls short of the required standards of making out a strong case more than prima facie suggesting involvement of opposite party no.2 in commission of crime for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the evidence on record while refusing to summon opposite party no. 2 as an accused and the order does not suffer from any illegality.

¶15

Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶16

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶17

April 21, 2026/ SY

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Anil Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Machkendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Singh vs State of Up and Another

Upendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ramnath vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nageena Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others