A227/4435/2025 of RAKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4435 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Krishan Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prateek Tyagi, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "(i). to set aside the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Kanpur Dehat in criminal Revision No.50 of 2024 (Rakesh Kumar and another Vs State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 06.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat in criminal Case No.683 of 2018 (State Vs Sani & others) arising out of case crime No.285 of 2018, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an FIR in Case Crime No.285 of 2018, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, was registered against the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners being cousin of victim's husband, were exonerated by the Investigating Officer during investigation, however, they were summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 6.7.2023 upon an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.683 of 2018 (State Vs Sani & others). 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 6.7.2023 was challenged in Criminal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rakesh Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Revision No.50 of 2024 (Rakesh Kumar and another Vs State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed on 7.12.2024, however, a categorical observation has been made by the revisional court that the petitioners were exonerated during the investigation. Learned counsel submitted that despite exoneration of the petitioners during the investigation after the Investigating Officer found the allegations false, they were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without properly considering the statements of prosecution witnesses. It was, therefore, contended that both orders are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside. 5.  Learned AGA conceded to the fact that none of the courts have given any reason nor have evaluated the evidence before summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order dated 6.7.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order dated 7.12.2024 passed by the revisional court. 7. Perusal of both impugned orders, prima facie, reveals that none of the courts have made any effort to evaluate the testimony of four witnesses recorded during the trial. Therefore, summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court without satisfying itself that sufficient evidence exists against them, is unsustainable. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.7.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order dated 7.12.2024 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside. However, the trial court is directed to pass a fresh speaking order upon the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. May 6, 2026 SK A227 No. 4435 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad