# Ajeet Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 226
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3063 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajeet-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46490
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision,
Section
239
-
When
accused
shall
be
discharged - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
354B, 506 - Obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 arises when the
Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be "groundless" - Test applied for
determining whether the charge should be
considered groundless is that where the
materials are such that even if unrebutted,
would make out no case whatsoever.(Para -
18,20 )

Revisionist moved an application for discharge - under
section 239 Cr.P.C. - contention - variance in statements
of the opposite party no.2 under Section 161 and
Section 164 of the Code with the F.I.R. version -
testimony of opposite party no.1 was sought to be
impeached - discharge was sought - Magistrate found no
material to initiate the proceedings - rejected the
application -hence revision. (Para - 2 to 5)

HELD:-No material error, illegality and perversity
pointed out in the order passed by the court below so
as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction of the Court.(Para - 22)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facts of the case as this court is of firm opinion
that there exist sufficient material which itself
shows that the powers exercised by the court
below while summoning the applicants, does not
suffer from any illegality and infirmity.

30. The learned counsel for the revisionist
has also not disputed the legal proposition so
culled out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation
to the scope and ambit of the powers u/s 319
Cr.P.C. and further he has not been able to bring
on record any material to show that the findings
recorded by the court below while summoning
her suffers from any perversity or illegality. For
the facts and the reasons noted above, there is no
good ground to interfere into the order dated
4.3.2021 summoning the revisionist.

31. Accordingly, the present revision lacks
of merit and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A226
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3063 of 2021

Ajeet Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar, Sri R.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revision,
Section
239
-
When
accused
shall
be
discharged - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
354B, 506 - Obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 arises when the
Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be "groundless" - Test applied for
determining whether the charge should be
considered groundless is that where the
materials are such that even if unrebutted,
would make out no case whatsoever.(Para -
18,20 )

Revisionist moved an application for discharge - under
section 239 Cr.P.C. - contention - variance in statements
of the opposite party no.2 under Section 161 and
Section 164 of the Code with the F.I.R. version -
testimony of opposite party no.1 was sought to be
impeached - discharge was sought - Magistrate found no
material to initiate the proceedings - rejected the
application -hence revision. (Para - 2 to 5)

HELD:-No material error, illegality and perversity
pointed out in the order passed by the court below so
as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction of the Court.(Para - 22)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Onkar Nath Mishra & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
anr., (2008) 2 SCC 561

2. St. of Mah. Vs Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659

3. St. of M.P. Vs Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338

4. Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.,(2013) 13 SCC 476

5. U. O I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr., (1979) 3
SCC 4

6. M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs C.B.I., Bengaluru, (2020)
2 SCC 768

7. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398

8. St. of J&K Vs Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC
181

9. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1
SCC 568

10. K. Ramakrishna & ors. Vs St. of Bihar & anr.,
(2000) 8 SCC 547
11 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri R. N. Tripathi, holding brief
of Sri Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
revisionist and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the State-opposite party.

2. The present revision has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No.18, Allahabad in Criminal
Case No. 762 of 2015 (State vs. Ajeet Singh),
whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No.18, Allahabad rejected the
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by
the revisionist.

3. Pleadings in the case indicates that the
proceedings in the criminal case were initiated
pursuant to an FIR lodged on 20.06.2014
registered as Case Crime No. 149 of 2014, under
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and
upon investigation a police report under Sections
354B, 506 of the Penal Code was placed before the
Magistrate. The opposite party no.2 in her
statement under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732 reiterated the FIR
version. An application for discharge under
Section 239 of the Code was moved primarily

seeking to contend that there was
variance in the statements of the opposite party
no.2 under Section 161 and Section 164 of the
Code with the F.I.R. version, and accordingly the
testimony of the opposite party no.1 was sought to
be impeached and discharge was sought.

4. The learned Magistrate on considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and material on
record and the scope of powers to be exercised
under Section 239 of the Code, has held that only
in a case where the police report submitted under
Section 173 of the Code along with the material
evidence and documents appended therewith
indicate that there is no material to initiate
proceedings that the Magistrate can pass an order
of discharge. In the facts of the case the learned
Magistrate has held that the minor variation in the
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
the Code to contradict the FIR version would not
be material inasmuch as the FIR is not supposed to
be an encyclopedia of facts.

5. Counsel for the applicant has sought to
assail the order passed by the court below by
seeking to point out the discrepancy between the
statements of the prosecutrix recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 of the Code and by asserting
that the same are in contradiction with the FIR
version. Learned Counsel has also referred to the
factual aspects of the case and the defence which is
to be set up on behalf of the applicant.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that at the stage of consideration of
discharge under Section 239 of the Code only a
prima facie case is to be seen and the Magistrate
having recorded a satisfaction with regard to the
existence of a prima facie case there cannot be said
to be any material error or illegality in the order
which is sought to be assailed.

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions
the relevant statutory provisions may be adverted
to. The procedure for trial of warrant cases by
Magistrate is provided for under Chapter XIX of
the Code and Sections 239 and 240 relate to
discharge and framing of charge.

8. The primary consideration at the stage of
framing of charge is the test of existence of a
prima facie case, and at this stage, probative value
of materials on record are not to be gone into.

9. The provisions which deal with the
question of framing of charge or discharge,
relatable to : (i) a sessions trial or, (ii) a trial of
warrant case, or (iii) a summons case, are
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contained in three pairs of sections under the
Code. These are Sections 227 and 228 in so far
as, sessions trial is concerned; Sections 239 and
240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and
Sections 245 (1) and 245(2) in respect of
summons case. The relevant provisions read as
follows:-

"227.
Discharge.--If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the
accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.--(1) If, after
such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the
Judge is of opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offence which--

(a) is not exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against
the accused and, by order, transfer the case for
trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any
other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and
direct the accused to appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the
Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such
date as he deems fit, and thereupon such
Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance
with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases
instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court,
he shall frame in writing a charge against the
accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any
charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the
charge shall be read and explained to the
accused, and the accused shall be asked whether
he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims
to be tried.

239.
When
accused
shall
be
discharged.--If, upon considering the police
report and the documents sent with it under
Section 173 and making such examination, if
any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks
necessary and after giving the prosecution and
the accused an opportunity of being heard, the
Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the
accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

240. Framing of charge.--(1) If, upon
such consideration, examination, if any, and
hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence triable under this Chapter,
which such Magistrate is competent to try and
which, in his opinion, could be adequately
punished by him, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and
explained to the accused, and he shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged
or claims to be tried.

245.
When
accused
shall
be
discharged.--(1) If, upon taking all the evidence
referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate
considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no
case against the accused has been made out
which, if unrebutted, would warrant his
conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be
deemed
to
prevent
a
Magistrate
from
discharging the accused at any previous stage of
the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such
Magistrate, he considers the charge to be
groundless."

10. The aforestated sections indicate that
the Code contemplates discharge of the accused
by the court of sessions under Section 227 in a
case triable by it, cases instituted upon a police
report are covered by Section 239 and cases
instituted otherwise than on a police report are
dealt with in Section 245. The three sections
contain somewhat different provisions in regard
to discharge of the accused. As per Section 227,
the trial judge is required to discharge the
accused if "the Judge considers that there is not
11 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused". The obligation to discharge the
accused under Section 239 arises when "the
Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless". The power to
discharge under Section 245(1) is exerciseable
when "the Magistrate considers, for reasons to
be recorded, that no case against the accused has
been made out which, if unrebutted would
warrant his conviction". Sections 227 and 239
provide for discharge being made before
recording of evidence and the consideration as to
whether the charge has to be framed or not is
required to be made on the basis of the record of
the case, including documents and oral hearing
of the accused and the prosecution or the police
report, the documents sent along with it and
examination of the accused and after affording
an opportunity to the parties to be heard. On the
other hand, the stage for discharge under Section
245 is reached only after the evidence referred to
in Section 244 has been taken.

11. Despite the slight variation in the
provisions with regard to discharge under the
three pairs of sections, the settled legal position
is that the stage of framing of charge under
either of these three situations, is a preliminary
one and test of "prima facie" case has to be
applied -- if the trial court is satisfied that a
prima facie case is made out, charge has to be
framed.

12. The nature of evaluation to be made by
the court at the stage of framing of charge came
up for consideration in Onkar Nath Mishra
and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another3, and referring to the earlier decisions
in State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath
Thapa4, and State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal
Soni5, it was held that at that stage the Court has
to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting
the offence alleged and it is not expected to go
deep into the probative value of the material on
record. The relevant observations made in the
judgment are as follows :-

"11. It is trite that at the stage of
framing of charge the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed
the existence of all the ingredients constituting
the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not
expected to go deep into the probative value of
the material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed
and not a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the
court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting
the offence alleged would justify the framing of
charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence.

xxx

13. Then again in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Som Nath Thapa, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court, after noting three pairs of sections
viz. (i) Sections 227 and 228 insofar as sessions
trial is concerned; (ii) Sections 239 and 240
relatable to trial of warrant cases; and (iii)
Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons
cases, which dealt with the question of framing
of charge or discharge, stated thus: (SCC p. 671,
para 32)

"32...if on the basis of materials on
record, a court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable
consequence, a case for framing of charge exists.
To put it differently, if the court were to think
that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
the accused has committed the offence. It is
apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge,
probative value of the materials on record cannot
be gone into; the materials brought on record by
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that
stage."

14. In a later decision in State of M.P.
Vs. Mohanlal Soni, this Court, referring to
several previous decisions held that: (SCC p.
342, para 7)

"7. The crystallised judicial view is
that at the stage of framing charge, the court has
to prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the
accused. "

13. Reiterating a similar view in Sheoraj
Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another6, it was observed that
while framing charges court is required to
evaluate materials and documents on record to
decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken
at their face value would disclose existence of
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At
this stage, the court is not required to go deep
into the probative value of the materials on
record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a
ground for presuming that the accused had
committed the offence and it is not required to
evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict the
accused. It was held that the court at this stage,
cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity
of
the
allegations
and
contradictions,
inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses
cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge.

14. In the context of trial of a warrant case,
instituted on a police report, the provisions for
discharge are to be governed as per terms of
Section 239 which provides that a direction for
discharge can be made only for reasons to be
recorded by the court where it considers the
charge against the accused to be groundless. It
would, therefore, follow that as per the
provisions under Section 239 what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed
and not that a ground for convicting the accused
has been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the
court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting
the offences alleged would justify the framing of
charge against the accused in respect of that
offence, and it is only in a case where the
Magistrate
considers
the
charge
to
be
groundless, he is to discharge the accused after
recording his reasons for doing so.

15. The legal position with regard to the
principles to be applied while considering a
discharge, in the context of the provisions under
Section 227 of the Code were considered in
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
and Another7, wherein it was observed as
follows:

"10. Thus, on a consideration of the
authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been
made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before
the Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly explained
the Court will be fully justified in framing a
charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie
case would naturally depend upon the facts of
each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the accused.
11 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
231

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction
under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which
under the present Code is a senior and
experienced court cannot act merely as a Post
office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but
has to consider the broad probabilities of the
case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of
the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial."

16. The considerations relevant at the stage
of discharge in the context of Section 227 were
discussed in a recent decision in the case of
M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation, Bengaluru8 and referring to
an earlier decision in P. Vijayan Vs. State of
Kerala9, and the legal principles governing the
exercise of such power were stated as follows:

"Legal
principles
applicable
in
regard to an application seeking discharge

17. This is an area covered by a large
body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment
which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P.
Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the
following principles:

17.1. If two views are possible and one
of them gives rise to suspicion only as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge would be empowered to discharge the
accused.

17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post
office to frame the charge at the instance of the
prosecution.

17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the
evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Evidence would consist of the statements
recorded by the police or the documents
produced before the Court.

17.4. If the evidence, which the
Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt
of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by
the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that
the accused committed offence, then, there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
trial".

17.5. It is open to the accused to
explain away the materials giving rise to the
grave suspicion.

17.6. The court has to consider the
broad probabilities, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case
and so on. This, however, would not entitle the
court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and
cons.

17.7. At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into, and the material
brought on record by the prosecution, has to be
accepted as true.

17.8. There must exist some materials
for entertaining the strong suspicion which can
form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.

18. The defence of the accused is not
to be looked into at the stage when the accused
seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC
(see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar10). The
expression, "the record of the case", used in
Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the
documents and the articles, if any, produced by
the prosecution. The Code does not give any
right to the accused to produce any document at
the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage
of framing of the charge, the submission of the
accused is to be confined to the material
produced by the police (see State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi11)."

17. The provisions of discharge under
Section 239 of the Code fell for consideration in
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
K. Ramakrishna and others Vs. State of
Bihar and Another12, and it was held that
questions regarding the sufficiency or reliability
of the evidence to proceed further are not
required to be considered by the trial court under
Section 239 and the High Court under Section
482. It was observed as follows:

"4. The trial court under Section 239
and the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon
to embark upon an inquiry as to whether
evidence in question is reliable or not or
evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed
further or not. However, if upon the admitted
facts and the documents relied upon by the
complainant or the prosecution and without
weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made
out, the criminal proceedings instituted against
the accused are required to be dropped or
quashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi13, the High Court or
the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a
strict hypertechnical approach to sieve the
complaint through a colander of finest gauzes
for testing the ingredients of offence with which
the accused is charge. Such an endeavour may
be justified during trial but not during the initial
stage."

18. The ambit and scope of exercise of
power under Sections 239 and 240 of the Code,
are therefore fairly well settled. The obligation
to discharge the accused under Section 239
arises when the Magistrate considers the charge
against the accused to be "groundless". The
section mandates that the Magistrate shall
discharge the accused recording reasons, if after
(i) considering the police report and the
documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii)
examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii)
giving the prosecution and the accused an
opportunity of being heard, he considers the
charge against the accused to be groundless, i.e.
either there is no legal evidence or that the facts
are such that no offence is made out at all. No
detailed
evaluation
of
the
materials
or
meticulous
consideration
of
the
possible
defences need be undertaken at this stage nor
any exercise of weighing materials in golden
scales is to be undertaken at this stage - the only
consideration at the stage of Section 239/240, is
as
to
whether
the
allegation/charge
is
groundless.

19. This would not be the stage for
weighing the pros and cons of all the
implications of the materials, nor for sifting the
materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise
at this stage is to be confined to considering the
police report and the documents to decide
whether the allegations against the accused can
be said to be "groundless'.

20. The word "ground" according to
Black's Law Dictionary14 connotes foundation
or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a
criminal case, it would be held to mean basis for
charging the accused or foundation for the
admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context,
the word "groundless" would connote no basis
or foundation in evidence. The test which may
therefore be applied for determining whether the
charge should be considered groundless is that
where the materials are such that even if
unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever.

21. Counsel for the revisionist has not been
able to dispute the aforesaid legal position with
regard to the scope of powers to be exercised at
the stage of discharge.

22. No material error, illegality and
perversity has been pointed out in the order
passed by the court below so as to warrant
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
of this Court.

23. The contention sought to be put
forward with regard to minor discrepancies in
11 All. Munni Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
233
the material evidence or the other factual aspects
of the case including the defence which is
sought to be set up on behalf of the accused,
cannot be considered at this stage of the
proceedings where only the test of a prima facie
case has to be applied.

24. No other point was urged.

25. The revision stands dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(2021)12ILR A233
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3145 of 2021

Munni Devi & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Mahesh Chandra Maurya, Sri Santosh Kr.
Singh Paliwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Revision -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363 366,
370-A, 376 & 120-B - The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 3/4 , 16/17 - stage contemplated
under section 319 Cr.P.C. - stage before
conclusion of trial - Magistrate must be prima
facie of the opinion that there are sufficient
material and cause for summoning the culprit
who is either not named in the FIR or if named,
he has not been charge sheeted or discharged -
only when strong and cogent evidence occurs
against a person from the evidence the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised -
Power cannot be exercised in a casual and
cavalier manner. (Para - 16)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence - once the Magistrate finds that there
was sufficient material available on record before
it to summon a person in the trial which is
proposed to be undertaken then the powers u/s
319 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked.(Para - 14)

Application preferred by opposite party no. 2 (mother
of victim) - under section 319 of Cr.P.C. - name of
applicants
be
also
included
in
the
criminal
proceedings - sufficient materials available for
prosecuting them with regard to conviction - court
below summoned the applicants for the offence
under IPC and POCSO Act - Challenging order, now
the revisionist are before this Court .(Para - 3,4,5)

HELD:-Court
below
while
passing
the
order
summoning the applicants considered the statements
of the victim as well as opposite party no. 2 both
under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and also the
statement during proceeding also and has recorded
the satisfaction which according to court is more than
the prima facie. There is no manifest illegality
committed by the court below while passing the
impugned order.(Para - 22,23)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. , 2014 (3) SCC 92

2. S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs Yogendra Chandak &
ors. , (2017) 16 SCC 226

3. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punj. Vs Jitendra
Bhimraj Bijjaya, AIR 1990 SC 1962

4. St. of Mah. Vs Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC
2041

5. M/S. Mahalakshmi Oil Mills Vs St. of A.P., AIR 1989
SC 335

6. Punj. Land Development & Reclamation Corp. Ltd.
Chandigarh Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Chandigarh & ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682