Pawan Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026CRLR/224/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against dismissal of a discharge application in a session trial arising from a 2013 FIR. The court noted prior proceedings under section 319 CrPC set aside on remand, directed the trial court to report compliance steps, and stayed framing of charges until the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on framing of charges against the revisionist until next date; report on compliance called from trial court.

Pawan Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 224 of 2026

Pawan Kumar Shukla

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Shiv	Kumar Soni, Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.,	Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶9

Court No. - 27

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

1.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist, is taken on record.

¶12

Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh 'Vats' Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf respondent no.2 which is taken on record.

¶13

This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09/01/2026 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C.Act, Barabanki, in Session Trial Number 1224 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime Number 95 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 325, and 452 of the IPC, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby a discharge application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶15

It appears that in the present case, initially a charge sheet was filed against three accused persons, whereas nine accused persons were named in the FIR. Investigation was kept pending against other accused persons. Charges were framed against the chargesheeted accused persons and later on application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved before the court below by the complainant, which was allowed and all the six accused persons, who were initially not chargesheeted were summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offenses altogether with the accused persons who were already facing trial had challenged the summoning order before this Court by filing Criminal Revision Number 1057 of 2017 ( Manodutt Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and anothers) and this Court had found that the impugned order was not in consonance with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others , [2104 (85) ACC 313]. The summoning order dated 14/09/2017 under section 319 CrPC was set aside by this Court vide order dated 13/10/2017 and the matter was remanded back to the court below with the direction

¶16

CRLR No. 224 of 2026

¶17

¶18

that after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, he shall decide the application dated 01/08/2017 afresh under section 319 Cr.P.C. in light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the meanwhile, the SHO concerned had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, with the prayer to seek permission for further investigation in respect of the six persons who were not charge-sheeted earlier and against whom investigation was pending. On this application, the Superintendent of Police passed an order " Permitted for further investigation".

¶20

He next submitted that no permission was taken from the court for further investigation, whereas cognizance was already taken against the three accused persons, who were earlier charge-sheeted by the court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the first informant submits that the court below has passed an order for further investigation, and subsequently a charge-sheet was filed against all the six persons against whom the investigation was pending including the present revisionists. Only present revisionists have filed the discharge application before the learned trial court, taking a plea of alibi that on the date of the incident, they were working as cashiers in the office of Block Development Officer, Barabanki, Lucknow. However, on the date of the incident, it was Sunday, and the office was not supposed to be open on that day.

¶22

The learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that learned court below has dismissed the discharge application in a mechanical manner without addressing the grounds taken therein in right perspective.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. submits that it is not clear that what action was taken by the court below in compliance of the order dated 13/10/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1057 of 2017.

¶24

List this Case on 20.04.2026 as fresh showing the name of Sri Bhanu Pratap 'Vats' as counsel for the respondent in the cause list.

¶25

The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to seek information from the court concerned as to what steps have been taken in compliance of the order dated 13/10/2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.1057 of 2017 and the court concerned shall submit the report to this Court before the date fixed.

¶26

Till the next date of listing, charges shall not be framed against the revisionist if the same has not already been framed.

¶27

March 13, 2026

¶28

dk/

¶29

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Mittal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

As Mohammad vs Smt. Arjha

Ram Krishna Prajapati @ Ram Krishna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish @ Sonu and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and Another vs Anand Kumar Mishra and Another

Deva Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another