Allahabad High Court

X (INFORMANT)versusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 22 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

A prospective accused may be summoned under Section 319 CrPC on the basis of recorded statements without prior cross‑examination, provided the evidence is prima facie sufficient.

Summary

The revision petition challenged the Special Judge's order rejecting an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to summon two prospective accused in a POCSO case involving a 17‑year‑old victim. The petitioners argued that the statements of two eyewitnesses had already been recorded and that, under settled law, cross‑examination is not a prerequisite for summoning a prospective accused. The respondents contended that the accused were not named in the FIR and that the trial court erred in requiring the eye‑witness to be examined before issuing a summons. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 2014 SC 1400), held that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of recorded statements if the evidence is more than prima facie, and that the trial court's requirement of prior cross‑examination was contrary to law. Consequently, the order rejecting the Section 319 application was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass a fresh order, and the revision was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an eye‑witness must be examined before a prospective accused can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of recorded statements even if not named in the FIR.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319

Subjects

Section 319
Summoning prospective accused
Cross‑examination
Prima facie evidence
Criminal revision
POCSO
Minor victim

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5829 of 2024

X (Informant)
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Pratap Singh, Lokendra Pratap
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State,
and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment/order
dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Exclusive Court,
POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in Sessions Case No. 977 of
2022 (State of U.P. vs. Sandeep alias Sanjay and others), arising out of
Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, whereby the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the statements of P.W.-1
and P.W.-2 have already been recorded before the learned trial court. The
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon opposite party
no. 2 (Saurabh) and opposite party no. 3 (Jitendra alias Teetu alias Teetalla).
The victim is a minor aged about 17 years. The incident is dated 12.08.2022,
and the date of birth of the victim, as stated by her, is 12.10.2004.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that they are not
named in the F.I.R. It is settled law under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that a person
may be summoned on the basis of the statement recorded before the trial
court, even if such person was not named in the F.I.R. or was exonerated in
the charge sheet despite being named therein. The accused is to be
summoned on the basis of the deposition made before the learned trial court.
As per Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial of the prospective accused has to
proceed along with the other accused. It is also settled that cross-
CRLR No. 5829 of 2024
2

examination of the witness is not a precondition for summoning an accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC
1400 that cross-examination is not required for summoning a proposed
accused; he may be summoned solely on the basis of the examination-in-
chief recorded during trial.

5. In the present matter, the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have already
been recorded. The learned trial court, by the impugned order, observed that
the eye-witness had not been examined at that stage; hence, there was no
sufficient ground to summon the prospective accused, Saurabh and Jitendra
alias Teetu alias Teetalla, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and accordingly
rejected the application.

6. The learned trial court has passed the impugned order on a perverse
finding. A prospective accused may be summoned on the basis of the
statement of witnesses recorded during trial if the evidence is more than
prima facie in nature, i.e., such evidence which, if left uncontroverted or
unrebutted, may lead to conviction. The observation of the trial court that
unless the eye-witness is examined, no order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can
be passed is not in consonance with the settled legal position.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is hereby set aside.
The learned trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.

8. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.

February 23, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…