# Atul Pandey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 632
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1786 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-pandey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46383
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
156
-
Allegation-opposite
party
prepared
a
forged referral letter -to lodge false FIR
against the revisionist--learned Magistrate
converted it into a complaint case -
Magistrate not applied judicious mind-as
offence made out a cognizable offence
and is offence of forgery-impugned order
set aside.

Matter remanded back to pass fresh order.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)10ILR A632
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J

Criminal Revision No. 1786 of 2021

Atul Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ali Hasan, Sri Istiyaq Ali

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

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
156
-
Allegation-opposite
party
prepared
a
forged referral letter -to lodge false FIR
against the revisionist--learned Magistrate
converted it into a complaint case -
Magistrate not applied judicious mind-as
offence made out a cognizable offence
and is offence of forgery-impugned order
set aside.

Matter remanded back to pass fresh order.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. 'Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of India & ors.',
reported in 2014(2) SCC 1;

2. Jitendra Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & 2 ors., Criminal
Revision
No.1768
of
2018,
decided
on
29.05.2018;

3. 'Shiv Mangal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.',
Criminal Revision No.715 of 2019, decided on
25.02.2019

4.Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs St. of U.P. & anr.',
passed in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No.43271 of 2018, decided on 30.11.2018.

5. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.' 2007 (59) ACC
739

6. Suresh Chandra Jain Vs State of M.P. & anr.
(2001) 2 SCC 628;

7. Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan & anr.
(2006) 1 SCC 627;

8. Ram Babu Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2001
(43) ACC 50 (FB);

9. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2007 (9) ADJI
(DB)

10. Ram Dev Food Products Vs St. of Guj.
(2015) 6 SCC 439

11. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of India & ors.
reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1

12. Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2002 SCC OnLine All 1221

13. 'Lalaram Vs St. of U.P. & 13 ors. passed in
Criminal Revision No.1611 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim
Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ali Hasan, learned
counsel for the revisionist and learned
A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused
the material brought on record.

2. This revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 16.10.2020
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II,
Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc.
Application No.3597 of 2020 (Atul Pandey
@ Param Pragyan Pandey versus Janardan
Pandey) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Police Station-Oonjh, District- Bhadohi
after summoning the record from the trial
court and remand the case before the
learned Magistrate for fresh consideration
of the application moved by the revisionist
under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration
10 All. Atul Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
633
of the FIR against the opposite party no.2
and investigation of the case.

3. The facts of the case are that the
revisionist lodged an FIR against the opposite
party no.2 in respect of a dispute that arose on
8.1.2020 as case crime no.2/2020 under
Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. It is
alleged that in order to create a false version of
a cross case against the revisionist, opposite
party no.2 Janardan Pandey fraudulently got
himself referred for medical examination by
preparing a forged referral letter dated
12.1.2020, on the basis of which the concerned
CMO wrote a letter dated 25.1.2020 to the
Chief Medical Superintendent of District
Hospital, Prayagraj for conducting the CT Scan
of Janardan Pandey. The revisionist informed
about this act of forgery by the revisionist to the
concerned CMO through a letter dated
4.2.2020, taking note of which the concerned
CMO requested CMS, Tej Bahadur Saprtu
Hospital, Prayagraj for cancellation of CT Scan
report
through
a
letter
No.Medical/CT
Scan/Nirastikaran/2019-20 dated 25.1.2020 for
being obtained on furnishing false referral
certificate and a copy of the said letter was
directed to be sent to the concerned SP, SHO
and the revisionist for the necessary action. But
even after an application was sent before the SP
Bhadohi, no action has been taken, therefore the
revisionist has moved an application under
Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of the FIR
and the investigation of the case for the offence
of forgery committed by the opposite party
no.2. The Judicial Magistrate II, Bhadohi at
Gyanpur vide order dated 16.10.2020 converted
the said application under Section 156(3) CrPC
into a complaint case and fixed the date on
2.1.2021 for statement of the revisionist under
Section 200 CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of
cognizable offence and as such the
Magistrate
must
have
directed
the
registration of the first information report
and investigation by police, instead of
treating the application as a complaint case.
He further submits that the order under
challenge has been passed mechanically
and in a routine manner, which does not
manifest the application of judicious mind
to the facts of the case and law applicable
therein. He has placed reliance on the cases
of 'Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
India and others', reported in 2014(2)
SCC 1; 'Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others', Criminal Revision
No.1768 of 2018, decided on 29.05.2018;
'Shiv Mangal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others', Criminal Revision No.715 of
2019, decided on 25.02.2019 and 'Ashok
Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and
another', passed in application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.43271 of 2018,
decided on 30.11.2018.

5. Learned AGA has submitted that
the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct
the police to register the F.I.R. and make
investigation without taking cognizance.
But, he has also the jurisdiction to take
cognizance and proceed to inquire the
matter
by
himself,
registering
the
application as a complaint case. In such
circumstance
he
has
to
follow
the
procedure prescribed for complaint case.
He has submitted that the Magistrate while
proceeding as a complaint case has still the
power to direct for police investigation, in
view of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. If the
Magistrate in his discretion has adopted the
option of registering the application as a
complaint case, no illegality has been
committed by the Magistrate. Learned
A.G.A. has placed reliance on the case of
'Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. and others'
2007 (59) ACC 739 (Allahabad) (D.B.) in
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
support of his contention that it is in the
discretion of the Magistrate to direct for
police
investigation
before
taking
cognizance under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
or after taking cognizance to proceed with
the application as a complaint case.

6. After considering the arguments as
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record, this
Court is of the view that in the cases of
Suresh Chandra Jain vs State of M.P.
and another (2001) 2 SCC 628; Mohd.
Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & another
another (2006) 1 SCC 627; Ram Babu
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others [2001
(43) ACC 50 (FB); Sukhwasi Vs. State of
U.P. & others [2007 (9) ADJI (DB) &
Ram Dev Food Products Vs. State of
Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 it has been laid
down that the Magistrate empowered under
section
190
Cr.P.C.
may
order
an
investigation by police under section 156
(3) but he need not order any such
investigation if he proposes to take
cognizance of the offence. Once he takes
cognizance he has to follow the procedure
envisaged in Chapter XV of the code. The
magistrate should apply judicial mind while
exercising his powers under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. He could not act in a
mechanical or casual manner and go on
with the complaint after getting the report.
The course adopted by the Magistrate i.e.
direction to the police for registration of
FIR and making investigation or to treat the
application as a complaint case, must be
supported by reasons. The order must also
reflect that the Magistrate on relevant
considerations has adopted one of these
two modes open to him. Mere mention in
the order that he has gone through the
complaint and the police investigation is
not required or otherwise, would not be
sufficient compliance of application of
judicial mind while deciding application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

7. In the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government
of
India
and
others
reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:

"120) In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

"i)
Registration
of
FIR
is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

ii) If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

iii) If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the
FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

iv) The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who
do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.

v) The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

vi) As to what type and in which
cases
preliminary
inquiry
is
to
be
10 All. Atul Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
635
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family
disputes

b)Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months
delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

vii)
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry.

viii)
Since
the
General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a
police
station,
we
direct
that
all
information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily
and meticulously reflected in the said Diary
and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry
must
also
be
reflected,
as
mentioned above."

8. The case of Lalita Kumari
(supra) came to be considered in Ramdev
Food Products Private Ltd. Vs. State of
Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 the first question
as framed therein was "whether the
discretion of the Magistrate to call for a
report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. instead of
directing
investigation
under
Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. is controlled by any defined
parameters? The Hon'ble Supreme Court
answered the first question by holding that
the direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
is to be issued only after application of
mind by the Magistrate. When the
Magistrate does not take cognizance and
does not find it necessary to postpone
issuance of process and finds that a case is
made out to proceed forthwith, direction
under the provision is issued. In other
words, where on account of credibility of
information available or weighing the
interest
of
justice
it
is
considered
appropriate
to
straightaway
direct
investigation, such a direction is issued.
The
cases
where
Magistrate
takes
cognizance and postpones issuance of
process are cases where the Magistrate is
yet to determine existence of sufficient
ground to proceed. The category of cases
falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari
may fall under section 202 Cr.P.C. Subject
to these broad guidelines available from the
scheme of the Court, exercise of discretion
by the Magistrate is guided by interest of
justice from case to case. Para Nos. 22 to
22.3 of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd.
(supra) is being reproduced as under:

"22. Thus, we answer the first
question by holding that:

22.1. The direction under Section
156 (3) is to be issued, only after
application of mind by the Magistrate.
When the Magistrate does not take
cognizance and does not find it necessary
to postpone the issuance of process and
finds a case made out to proceed forthwith,
direction under the said provision is issued.
In other words, where on account of
credibility of information available, or
weighing the interest of justice it is
considered appropriate to straightaway
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direct investigation, such a direction is
issued.

22.2. The cases where Magistrate
takes cognizance and postpones issuance of
process are cases where the Magistrate has
yet to determine "existence of sufficient
ground to proceed". Category of cases
falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumar
may fall under Section 202 Cr.P.C..

22.3. Subject to these broad
guidelines available from the scheme of the
Code, exercise of discretion by the
Magistrate is guided by interest of justice
from case to case."

9. It would also be appropriate to refer
to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Gulab Chand Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.
and others 2002 SCC OnLine All 1221 in
which this Hon'ble Court has held as under:

"20. In these circumstances, the
question arises that when a Magistrate is
approached by a complainant with an
application praying for a direction to the
police under Section 156 (3) to register and
investigate an alleged cognizable offence,
why should he

(A) grant the relief of registration
of a case and its investigation by the police
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and when
should he

(B) treat the application as a
complaint and follow the procedure of
Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

21. The scheme of Cr.P.C. and the
prevailing circumstances require that the
option to direct the registration of the case
and its investigation by the police should be
exercised where some investigation is
required, which is of a nature that is not
possible for the private complainant, and
which can only be done by the police under
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example

(1) where the full details of the
accused are not known to the complainant
and the same can be determined only as a
result of investigation, or

(2) where recovery of abducted
person or stolen property is required to be
made by conducting raids or searches of
suspected places or persons, or

(3) where for the purpose of
launching a successful prosecution of the
accused evidence is required to be collected
and preserved. To illustrate by example cases
may be visualised where for production before
Court at the trial (a) sample of blood soaked
soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the
place of incident; or

(b) recovery of case property is to be
made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or (d)
preparation of inquest report; or (e) witnesses
are not known and have to be found out or
discovered through the process of investigation.

22. But where the complainant is in
possession of the complete details of all the
accused as well as the witnesses who have to be
examined and neither recovery is needed nor
any such material evidence is required to be
collected which can be done only by the police,
no "investigation" would normally be required
and the procedure of complaint case should be
adopted. The facts of the present case given
below serve as an example. It must be kept in
mind that adding unnecessary cases to the diary
of the police would impair their efficiency in
respect
of
cases
genuinely
requiring
investigation. Besides
even
after
taking
cognizance and proceeding under Chapter XV
the Magistrate can still under Section 202 (1)
Cr.P.C. order investigation, even thought of a
limited nature (see para 7 of JT (2001) 2 (SC)
81: ((2001) 2 SCC 628: AIR 2001 SC 571)."

10. Recently, in the case of 'Lalaram
Vs. State of U.P. and 13 others' passed in
Criminal Revision No.1611 of 2020,
10 All. Atul Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
637
decided on 18.12.2020, this Court has
summarized the well settled proposition of
law on the scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
the power and jurisdiction of the Magistrate
while deciding such an application. It
would
be
appropriate
to
reproduce
paragraph no.40 of the case of Lalaram
(Supra), as under:-

"40.
From
the
aforesaid
judgments,
some
of
the
following
proposition of law, well settled, may be
summarized as under:-

(40.01). Under Section 154 of the
Code,
if
the
information
discloses
commission of a cognizable offence it is the
mandatory duty of the police officer in
charge to register the FIR. He cannot avoid
his duty of registering offence, if cognizable
offence is made out.

(40.02). If FIR is not registered,
the person aggrieved by a refusal to record
the information has remedy to approach
the Superintendent of Police by submitting
an application in writing and by post to
enable him to satisfy if such information
discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence and in case of such satisfaction,
either to investigate himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police
officer subordinate to him.

(40.03). If the person still feels
aggrieved from inaction of the police
authorities he has the remedy to approach
the Magistrate by way of application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,

(40.04). On such an application
having been made, if, the Magistrate finds
that a cognizable offence is made out, the
Magistrate may direct the police to register
the FIR and investigate the matter, without
taking cognizance.

(40.05). The other option open to
the Magistrate is to take cognizance on the
complaint, register it as a complaint case
and
proceed
as
per
the
procedure
prescribed under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. The
Magistrate would record the statement of
the complainant and the witnesses if any
present, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. He
may, if he thinks fit and shall in cases
where accused resides out side the area of
exercise of jurisdiction of the Magistrate
concerned, either enquire into the case
himself or direct an investigation to be
made by a police officer or by such other
person as he thinks fit, under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he shall pass
order, either under Section 203 dismissing
the complaint, for brief reasons to be
recorded, or he shall issue process under
Section 204 Cr.P.C.

(40.06). In either case, i.e. issuing
direction for investigation by the police
officer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or
taking cognizance and registering it as a
complaint case, the Magistrate has to apply
judicial mind. There cannot be mechanical
exercise of jurisdiction or exercise in a
routine manner. Mere statement in the
order that he has gone through the
complaint, documents and heard the
complainant will not be sufficient. What
weighed with the Magistrate to order
investigation or to take cognizance should
be reflected in the order, although a
detailed expression of his view is neither
required nor warranted.

(40.07).
The
exercise
of
discretion by the Magistrate is basically
guided by interest of justice, from case to
case.

(40.08). However, where some
investigation is required which is of a
nature that is not possible for the private
complainant and which can only be done
by the police officer upon whom statute has
conferred
the
powers
essential
for
investigation, the option to direct the
registration of the FIR and its investigation
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the police officer should be exercised,
for example:-

(i) where the full details of the
accused are not known to the complainant
and the same can be determined only as a
result of investigation, or

(ii) where recovery of abducted
person or stolen property is required to be
made by conducting raids or searches of
suspected places or persons, or

(iii) where for the purpose of
launching a successful prosecution of the
accused evidence is required to be
collected and preserved, and to illustrate
this, by few example cases may be
visualised where for production before
Court at the trial

(a) sample of blood soaked soil is
to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the
place of incident; or

(b) recovery of case property is to
be made and kept sealed; or

(c) recovery under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act; or

(d) preparation of inquest report;
or

(e) witnesses are not known and
have to be found out or discovered through
the process of investigation.

(40.09). Where the complainant is
in possession of the complete details of all
the accused and the witnesses who have to
be examined and neither recovery is
needed nor any such material evidence is
required to be collected which can be done
only by the police, no "investigation" would
normally be required and the procedure of
complaint case should be adopted.

(40.10).
Category
of
cases
falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari
(Supra) i.e.

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family
disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases,

(d) Corruption cases

(e)
Cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay
in
filling
criminal
complaint etc. may fall under Section 202
Cr.P.C .

(40.11). The Magistrate should
also keep in view that primarily, it is the
duty of the State/police to investigate the
cases
involving
cognizable
offence.
Generally, the burden of proof to bring
the guilt of the accused is on the State
and this burden is a heavy burden to
prove the guilt beyond all reasonable
doubts.
This
burden
should
not
unreasonably
be
shifted
on
an
individual/complainant from the State by
treating the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.

(40.12). The investigation which
the police officer or such other person
makes in pursuance of the direction of the
Magistrate under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
is the same kind of investigation as is
required to be conducted by police
officer, under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. which
ends with submission of the report as per
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

(40.13). The distinction between
the investigation by the police officer under
Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the precognizance stage and the latter is at post
cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is
seisin of the case. The investigation under
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth or false hood of the
complaint for helping the Magistrate to
decide, whether or not there is sufficient
ground, for him to proceed further against
the accused by issuing process, whereas,
the inquiry report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. of the investigation made by the
police of its own or under the directions of
the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of enabling the
10 All. Atul Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
639
Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

(40.14). Once cognizance is taken
on the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and he embarks
upon the procedure embodied in Chapter
XV, he would not be competent to revert to
the pre-cognizance stage under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.

(40.15). If the Magistrate did not
order for police investigation under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the
case, that would not be bar to the exercise
of the power of the Magistrate for directing
the police investigation under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C."

11. In 'Jitendra Kumar' (Supra),
'Shiv Mangal Singh' (Supra) and 'Ashok
Kumar Pathak' (Supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the revisionist also it
was held that the Magistrate shall pass
order with due application of judicious
mind.

12. It is true that every application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing
commission of a cognizable offence may
not be directed for investigation by police
and the Magistrate has jurisdiction to treat
the same as a complaint case but in
exercise of such jurisdiction the Magistrate
has to keep in view various factors as laid
down in Lalaram (supra), which are only
illustrative
and
not
exhaustive.
The
exercise of jurisdiction is basically guided
by interest of justice, from case to case.

13. Perusal of the order clearly shows
that the Magistrate has not applied
judicious mind to the facts of the case,
which not only made out commission of a
cognizable offence but an offence of
forgery against opposite party no.2. The
application clearly stated that the opposite
party no.2 has manufactured the referral
letter of Medical Officer Incharge C.H.C.
Deegh, Bhadohi for getting X-ray of his
injury done from District Hopsital, Beli,
Prayagraj which was found after enquiry
conducted
by
the
Department.
The
gravity/seriousness of the offence; the
requirement of the evidence for the purpose
of launching a successful prosecution, and
basically the interest of justice depending
on the facts of each case, need be
considered in passing the order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The offence, as per
the contents of the application is not a
matrimonial, commercial or family dispute,
etc. The order does not assign any valid
reason nor reflects application of judicious
mind to relevant considerations and does
not stand the test of the law as laid down in
the cases of 'Ram Deo Food Products'
(Supra) and 'Gulab Chand Upadhyay'
(Supra).

14. The present revision is, therefore,
allowed. The order dated 16.10.2020
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II,
Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc.
Application No.3597 of 2020 (Atul Pandey
@ Param Pragyan Pandey versus Janardan
Pandey) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Police Station-Oonjh, District- Bhadohi is
hereby set aside and the case is remanded
back with the direction to the learned
Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the
application of the applicant after affording
opportunity of hearing to parties concerned,
in accordance with law, in the light of the
observations made herein above, within a
period of two months from the date of
production of computerized copy of this
judgment before him.

15. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

16. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)10ILR A640
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2021

BEFORE

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

Criminal Revision No. 1981 of 2021

Upendra @ Mohit ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Shukla

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

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 319 - Revisionist
named in FIR-assigned a role -testimony
of
PW-1
and
PW-2-
indicative
of
complicity
of
Revisionist-though
not
arraigned in charge sheet-summoning
order u/s 319 legal.

Held, The power under Section 319 of the Code
to summon even those persons who are not
named in the chargesheet to appear and face
trial, being unquestionable and the object of the
provision being not to allow a person who
deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being not
arraigned in the trial in spite of possibility of his
complicity which can be gathered from the
evidence during the course of trial, the order
passed under Section 319 of the Code
summoning the revisionist does not contain
any
material
error
so
as
to
warrant
inference.(para 20)

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

3. Rajesh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 6 SCC
368

4. Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs St. of U. P. & anr.,
(2020) 2 SCC 323

5. Adesh Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Application
u/s
482
No.8478
of
2021,
decided
on
04.08.2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr.
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Pankaj
Saxena,
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate-I
appearing
alongwith Ms. Sushma Soni, learned
Additional Government Advocate, for the
State-opposite party.

2. The present criminal revision has
been
filed
against
the
order
dated
18.03.2021 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court no.4,
Hathras in S.T. No.396 of 2015 (State vs.
Girendrapal and Others), arising out of
Case Crime No.700 of 2014, under
Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station- Sasni, District Hathras, whereby
the revisionist has been summoned by the
court below in exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731.