NABEEL ALIAS GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7009 of 2025

Nabeel Alias Guddu
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Shubham Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., Javed Alam

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. Heard Sri Shubham Kumar, learned counsel for the Revisionist, Sri
Javed Alam, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

2. Present Revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Special Judge,
Exclusive Court(Pocso Act)/Additional Session Judge Meerut in Sessions
Trial No. 260 of 2019 (State Vs. Abdul Wajid and others), whereby the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.has been allowed and the
Revisionist accused Nabeel Alia Guddu has been summoned under
Section, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC for facing the trial.

3. Opposite Party No. 2, Firoz Khan, lodged an FIR being Case Crime
No. 225 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC at Police
Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut. During investigation, the statement of
Opposite Party No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the
post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. The Investigating Officer
also recorded the statements of witnesses namely Asim Khan, Shamshad
Ali, Suhail Khan, Mohd. Kasif, Asgar Ali and Ravi. Upon completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused
persons. During trial, the learned Trial court recorded the statements of
P.W.1 to P.W.3. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 moved an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the learned Trial court
summoned the revisionist. Aggrieved thereby, the revisionist preferred
                                                       CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                               2


Criminal Revision No. 3727 of 2025, which was heard and decided.
Subsequently, after passing of the order by this Hon’ble Court, the
learned Trial court again summoned the revisionist vide impugned order,
giving rise to the present revision.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that the
impugned order dated 12.09.2025 has been passed by the learned Trial
Court without considering the material on record. The learned Trial Court
has not considered the fact that the Revisionist was not named in the FIR
and on the basis of the statement of some interested witnesses the
investigating officer has implicated him during the investigation and at
the later stage of the investigation, some credible witnesses appeared on
whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has
exonerated the Revisionist and filed the charge-sheet against other
accused persons. It is also not stated that informant has not named the
Revisionist in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court utterly failed to
consider the material on record and passed the impugned order dated
12.09.2025, which is based upon conjectures and surmises. There is not a
single whisper against the Revisionist. Thus, the impugned order is
perverse and against the fact and law, which cannot be allowed to
sustain.

6. It is further argued that before passing the impugned order, order dated
24.06.2025 was passed by the learned Trial court, whereby, the
Revisionist was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that order was
challenged before this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 3727 of
2025(Nabeel Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was
allowed and the matter was remitted back to Trial Court to decide the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh.

7. It is further argued that the learned Trial Court has again without
making any heed to the observations and directions of this Court passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3727 of 2025, allowed the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a cursory manner, which is against the settled
principle of law.
                                                        CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                               3


8. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State that the FIR has been lodged
by the informant Opposite Party No. 2, in which he has mentioned the
name of all the eye witnesses who have seen the incident and during the
investigation on the basis of statement of the eye witnesses, the name of
the Revisionist came into light, but the Investigating Officer in
connivance with the Revisionist, did not arraign the Revisionist as an
accused in the charge-sheet, despite sufficient material being available in
the case diary. The Investigating Officer exonerated the accused merely
on the basis of stereotyped statements of the eyewitnesses in regard to the
eyewitness. During trial, the eye witnesses were examined by the Trial
Court and they stated about the presence and involvement of the
eyewitness in the occurrence, and the material available on record is
sufficient to raise a prima facie grave suspicion against the eye witness.
The order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does
not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

9. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2
and the learned AGA that the learned counsel for the Revisionist has
taken the ground of the statements of witnesses collected by the
Investigating Officer during investigation, whereas, in the previous
revision filed by the accused-Revisionist, this Court has observed that the
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered while
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order passed in the
previous revision itself counters the grounds taken by the learned Counsel
for the Revisionist.

10. A perusal of the record shows that the informant, Opposite Party No.
2 Firoz Khan, has lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that on 09.12.2016 at
about 7:15 pm, the informant’s younger brother, Nasir, was standing at
the corner of a lane near Chhapla Malla Halwai, Khairnagar, when
Rahman Saifi, Salman Saifi and Shakir Saifi, along with their associates
including Abdul Wajid alias Guddu and Arif, all residents of the same
locality, arrived armed with illegal firearms with the intention to kill and
attacked him. During the assault, accused Rahman Saifi fired a gunshot at
Nasir, hitting him in the neck. The incident was witnessed by Shamshad
Ali, Shahjad Ali, Suhail, Asim and others present at the spot. After firing
                                                           CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                                 4


the shot, the accused fled towards their homes. Nasir was immediately
taken by the people present to S.M. Prakash Hospital for treatment, where
the doctor declared him dead.

11. It is very much clear from the F.I.R. that the informant is not himself
an eyewitness but has mentioned Shamshad Ali, Suhail Khan, Asim
Khan, etc., who had seen the occurrence. It is true that Junaid was not
named in the F.I.R. The statements of witnesses Asim Khan, Shamshad
Ali, Suhail Khan, Mohammad Kashif, Asgar Ali and Ravi, recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., show that all of them are eye witnesses and have
stated about the involvement of Junaid in the occurrence by assigning him
a specific role.

12. So far as the involvement of the accused-revisionist is concerned, the
eye witnesses Asim Khan, Shamshad Ali, and Suhail Khan have clearly
stated about the involvement of the revisionist, Nabeel Alias Guddu in the
occurrence by assigning him a specific role, namely that he was present at
the place of occurrence and had caught hold of the deceased along with
the other co-accused persons. So far as the other eye witnesses are
concerned, they have made statements similar to each other that
Revisionist Nabeel Alias Guddu was not involved in the occurrence and
he has been wrongly implicated.

13. The copies of the statements of PW-1 Feroz Khan, PW-2 Suhail
Khan, and PW-3 Asim Khan are available on record, which have been
recorded during trial. All of them have taken the name of the accused-
Revisionist, Nabeel Alias Guddu, as being involved in the occurrence and
present at the spot. Though PW-1 is not an eye witness, he has lodged the
FIR after receiving information from the eye witnesses, and PW-2 and
PW-3 are the eye witnesses who have specifically stated about the
involvement of the accused-Revisionist, Nabeel Alias Guddu, in
committing the offence.

14. For summoning any person as an accused, the provisions are
contained under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which is as follows:

     "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of
     offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an
                                                                CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                                   5


     offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the
     accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried
     together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for
     the offence which he appears to have committed.
     (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or
     summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose
     aforesaid.
     (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a
     summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry
     into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
     (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1),
     then—
     (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh,
     and the witnesses re-heard;
     (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such
     person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of
     the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

15. In regard to the summoning of any person for consideration of an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court has
passed various judgments and laid down guiding principles which are
required to be followed by the Trial Courts while passing any order under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

16. For consideration of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guiding principle in the case of
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 92
(Constitutional Bench), that the power to summon a person as an accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and it should
be exercised sparingly for summoning any person. The evidence adduced
before the Court must be strong and cogent suggesting a greater than
prima-facie case though it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to the
conviction of the person being summoned.

17. In a case of Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another (2023) 5 SCC
406, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of high
standard of evidence. The Hon'ble Court stressed that the standard for
                                                              CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                                  6


summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much
higher than the standard required for framing a charge. It must be strong
and credible evidence, pointing to the person's complicity.

18. In a recent case law Neeraj Kumar Alias Neeraj Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. : (2025 INSC 1386), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated
that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and
extraordinary. The Court must be satisfied that evidence against the
person sought to be summoned is strong and cogent more than prima
facie, but short of proof for conviction. It is further held that summoning
cannot be based on conjectures and speculations, evidence recorded
during the trial must reasonably indicate involvement of proposed
accused.

19. Though earlier passed order on the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was set aside by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3727 of
2025(Nabeel Alia Guddu Vs. State of U.P. and Another), in which this
Court had observed that the Trial Court cannot consider the material
collected by the Investigating Officer or statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation for exercising the power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., but has to derive its satisfaction only on the basis of
evidence collected during the trial and inquiry and the matter was
remitted back to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter,
the impugned order under challenge in this Criminal Revision was passed
by the learned Trial Court.

20. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the case law
Bijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan:2017(7) SCC 706 and
argued that the learned Trial Court has not considered the statements of
eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have specifically
stated that the Revisionist was not involved in committing the offence. In
the case law Bijendra Singh(Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as follows:

     "This record was before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the
     trial court went by the deposition of complainant and some other persons
     in their examination-in-chief, with no other material to support their so-
     called verbal/ocular version. Thus, the ‘evidence’ recorded during trial
                                                                CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                                   7


     was nothing more than the statements which was already there under
     Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No
     doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on
     the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination-in-chief.
     However, in a case like the present where plethora of evidence was
     collected by the IO during investigation which suggested otherwise, the
     trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming
     prima facie opinion and to see as to whether ‘much stronger evidence
     than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants) complicity has come on
     record. There is no satisfaction of this nature. Even if we presume that the
     trial court was not apprised of the same at the time when it passed the
     order (as the appellants were not on the scene at that time), what is more
     troubling is that even when this material on record was specifically
     brought to the notice of the High Court in the Revision Petition filed by
     the appellants, the High Court too blissfully ignored the said material.
     Except reproducing the discussion contained in the order of the trial
     court and expressing agreement therewith, nothing more has been done.
     Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny."

21. In this case law, there were cogent evidence available to corroborate
the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the fact
that the proposed accused was not present on spot at the time of
occurrence, whereas, in the present case, the incident appears to be
substantiated by the prompt FIR, medical evidences and the statements of
witnesses made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in favour of Revisionist are not
supported with any cogent evidence.

22. In the case in hand, it is very much clear that there are statements of as
many as six eye witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during
investigation, out of which all have named Junaid to be involved in the
commission of the offence, who was also not named in the FIR. Three eye
witnesses have stated that the revisionist, Nabeel Alias Guddu, was not
present at the spot, whereas PW-2 and PW-3, being eye witnesses, have
stated before the Court about the involvement of the Revisionist, whose
credibility stands at a much higher pedestal than the statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
                                                                                            CRLR No. 7009 of 2025
                                                                   8


                                    23. The truthfulness and credibility of the statements given by the
                                    witnesses before the Court and the evidence collected by the Investigating
                                    Officer can be assessed only after completion of the trial by examining all
                                    the material witnesses. The facts and circumstances of the present case are
                                    factually different from those relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
                                    revisionist, therefore, the said judgment does not come to the rescue of the
                                    Revisionist.

                                    24. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed
                                    above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in
                                    the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the
                                    Revisionist has failed to demonstrate any manifest injustice or gross
                                    miscarriage of justice that warrants the exercise of this Court’s revisional
                                    jurisdiction. The impugned order is well reasoned and based on a proper
                                    appreciation of the evidence and legal provisions.

                                    25. Consequently, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit stands
                                    dismissed. The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Special Judge,
                                    Exclusive Court(Pocso Act)/Additional Session Judge Meerut in Sessions
                                    Trial No. 260 of 2019 is hereby confirmed.

                                    26. The observation made herein are limited only for the purpose of
                                    deciding the instant Revision Petition and shall not be construed as an
                                    expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the trial.



                                                                                 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)
                                    January 8, 2026
                                    ADY




Digitally signed by :-
AMAR DEEP YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad