Allahabad High Court
RAKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
Summoning the petitioners under Section 319 CrPC without proper evaluation of the evidence is unsustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, Rakesh Kumar and another, challenged orders dated 6 July 2023 (by a Judicial Magistrate) and 7 December 2024 (by a revisional court) that summoned them under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The petitioners contended that the investigating officer had exonerated them after finding the allegations false, yet the courts proceeded without evaluating the testimony of four prosecution witnesses. The State conceded that the lower courts had not recorded any reasons or examined the evidence before issuing the summons. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the summons were unsustainable as the courts failed to satisfy themselves of sufficient evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside both the magistrate’s and revisional court’s orders and directed the trial court to pass a fresh speaking order on the Section 319 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a court can summon an accused under Section 319 CrPC without a proper evaluation of the evidence on record.
- Whether the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the revisional court are liable to be set aside under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 319
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
- Domestic Violence Protection Act — s. Section 3, Section 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. Section 323, Section 498A, Section 504, Section 506
Subjects
- Article 227
- Section 319 CrPC
- exoneration
- evidence evaluation
- domestic violence
- criminal procedure
- high court supervision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4435 of 2025
Rakesh Kumar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
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
A227 No. 4435 of 2025
2
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.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
May 6, 2026
SK
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…