Anjani Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anjani Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Admission of the criminal revision with directions to summon the lower court record and issue notice to respondent no.2 through the C.J.M. concerned; no final decision on the challenge to the Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning order at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionists were rightly summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. when the Investigating Officer had found nothing against them, independent witness Diwaker assigned them no role, and the court below allegedly did not record its satisfaction regarding a prima facie case.

Ratio / Principle

The criminal revision was admitted.

Key takeaways

The lower court record was directed to be summoned.ratio¶¶18
Notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no.2, to be served through the C.J.M. concerned and returnable at an early date.ratio¶¶19
Steps within a week were directed, and the learned A.G.A. was also to get the notices served upon respondent no.2 at his/her own end.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 386 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J., dated April 6, 2026 — admitted against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2026 of the learned Special Judge EC Act, Sitapur in C.I.S No.03 of 2022, S.T. No. 03 of 2022 ('State of U.P. versus Balak Ram @ Hement and others'), arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2021, Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur, whereby the revisionists (Anjani Mishra and another) were summoned to face trial along with co-accused Balak Ram and Santosh Kumar under Sections 147, 148, 148, 376, 308, 354-B, 323, 324, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. Revisionists' contentions: the Investigating Officer found nothing against them in the final investigation and only co-accused Kamlesh and Balak Ram were chargesheeted; during trial, independent witness Diwaker assigned them no role; the court below wrongly invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording satisfaction of a prima facie case; false implication due to land dispute. Per contra, learned A.G.A.: the victim and her mother supported the prosecution version against the revisionists in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in testimony. Operative order: admit; summon lower court record; notice to respondent no.2 through C.J.M. concerned, returnable at an early date; steps within a week; A.G.A. to also effect service; list on 08.05.2026 in top ten case. Merits not decided at this admission stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 386 of 2026

Anjani Mishra And Another

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2026 passed by learned Special Judge EC Act, Sitapur in C.I.S No.03 of 2022, S.T. No. 03 of 2022 "State of U.P. versus Balak Ram @ Hement and others", arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2021, whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial along with coaccused Balak Ram and Santosh Kumar under Sections 147, 148, 148, 376, 308, 354-B, 323, 324, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(5)SC/ST Act, Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur,

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Investigating Officer had not found anything against the revisionists in the final investigation and only the co-accused, Kamlesh and Balak Ram, were chargesheeted. During the trial, independent witness Diwaker did not assign any role to the revisionists. Learned court below has wrongly summoned the revisionists to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording its satisfaction regarding a prima facie case. The revisionists are falsely implicated due to land dispute.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the victim and her mother are both aggrieved in this case and have supported the prosecution version against the revisionists in their statements recorded under Sections 161

CRLR No. 386 of 2026

2

and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as in their testimony before the court.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record.

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served upon him/ her through C.J.M. concerned, returnable at an early date.

Steps within a week.

Learned A.G.A. to also get the notices served upon respondent no.2 at his/ her own end.

List on 08.05.2026 in top ten case.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

April 6, 2026

Raj

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench