# Jai Nath Prajapati Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 828
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2026
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-nath-prajapati-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54009
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to abuse of the process of court. Therefore, appellant is entitled to the relief claimed for quashing
the complaint/ FIR.

23. In view of the aforesaid, entire criminal proceeding in Sessions Case No.291 of 2024
(State Vs. Abhinash Sharma @ Avinash Sharma), under Section 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section
3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, arising out of Case Crime No.135 of 2024 as well as the
summoning order 13.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.)

24. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 828
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2026

Jai Nath Prajapati ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the trial court rightly exercised its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding s. 358
B.N.S.S, 2023) to summon the revisionist as an additional accused in the commission of the offence on the
basis of evidence adduced during trial, in conformity with the requirement of "more than a prima facie case."

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 2(g),
319, 358(1), 161 - Against summoning order - Scope of - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - As
per the prosecution case originated from an incident dated 29.05.2021 at about 7:50 p.m.,
wherein the husband of complainant, who was returning home after closing his medicine clinic,
was allegedly intercepted near Sangeeta Farm House by the present revisionist along with other
co-accused persons, and certain unknown persons, who due to previous enmity and pursuant to
a conspiracy, fired at him with firearms, causing his death on the spot - The First Information
Report was lodged on 30.05.2021 under various sections of I.P.C. - After investigation, no
charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist - However, during the course of trial, upon
recording the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 (informant), P.W.-2, and P.W.-3 all of whom
specifically named and attributed active participation to the revisionist in the firing incident, an
application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite parties - The learned trial court, being
satisfied that the evidence adduced during trial disclosed more than a prima facie case against
the revisionist, passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 summoning him to face trial along
with the other accused persons, which order was assailed in the instant criminal revision before
the High Court. (E-11)

Held: It is settled law that statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation do not constitute
substantive evidence; they can only be used for the purpose of contradiction of the statements recorded
during the trial by prosecution witnesses - The evidence recorded during the trial, along with all the facts and
1 All. Jai Nath Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
829
circumstances of the case, clearly establishes that the evidence against the revisionist collected during the
trial is more than a prima facie case against the accused/revisionist - Any contradictions in the statements
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, or any improvements, if at all, noticed during the trial, are
matters to be considered by the learned trial court after completion of entire evidence and at the conclusion
of the trial - The evidence available before the learned trial court at the time of summoning the
revisionist/accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was sufficient for exercising such power - The learned trial court rightly
passed the impugned order by summoning the accused/revisionist - No illegality in the impugned order, thus,
criminal revision dismissed. [Paras 20, 24, 25]

Case Law Cited
Sagar v. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 (6) SCC 389; Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and
Another, 2021 (12) SCC 608; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) (3) SCC 902; Omi v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 621; Shiv Baran v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 1417; Asim Akhtar
v. State of West Bengal, 2024 NSC 794 - referred to

Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., 1994(1) SCC (Cri) 1390 -distinguished

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; First Information Report; Summoning of revisionist; ss. 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C.;
Firearm injuries; Previous enmity; Investigation; Delay in lodging the FIR; No charge-sheet filed against the
present revisionist; Statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.; Medical practitioner; Examination-in-chief of P.W.-1,
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3; Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C.; Evidence recorded during trial; More than prima facie case;
Contradictions and improvements; Cross-examination; Substantive evidence; Extraordinary power; Illegality or
irregularity; Criminal revision dismissed.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 201 of 2026

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025 passed by District and Sessions Judge in Session Trial No.
310 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Revisionist:
Jagannath Singh, Shree Prakash Giri

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The brief genesis of the present case is as follows:-

3. The incident occurred on 29.05.2021 at about 7:50 p.m., whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on
30.05.2021 at 10:44 a.m. The F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the named accused persons, namely: 1.
Ravi Gautam, Bhim Gautam, 3. Jai Nath Prajapati (revisionist) and 4. Mohd. Usman and 5. several
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other unknown persons. The opposite party no. 2, i.e., the complainant, stated in her F.I.R. that the
incident took place on 29.05.2021 at about 7:50 p.m. The husband of the complainant, Faujdar
Prajapati, runs a small medicine clinic. After closing the clinic, he was returning home on his Super
Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no. UP62 AY 6657. As soon as he reached near Sangeeta
Farm House, approximately 250 meters away from his residence, due to previous enmity and
pursuant to a systematic conspiracy, the accused persons?Ravi Gautam and Bhim Gautam (sons of
Nandlal Gautam), Jai Nath Prajapati (revisionist, son of Bhulai Ram), Mohd. Usman (son of
Ataullah), and several unknown persons?stopped the husband of the complainant and fired at him.
Due to the said injuries, the husband of the complainant died on the spot. Upon hearing the noise,
several persons, including the complainant and her family members, reached the place of
occurrence, whereupon the aforesaid accused persons fled from the spot after showing their pistols.
On the advice of the villagers, the deceased was taken to the Community Health Centre, Badlapur,
where the doctor declared Faujdar Prajapati dead. The condition of the complainant was not proper
at that time; therefore, she came to the police station on the next day and submitted the report.
Hence, the F.I.R. was lodged

4. After investigation, no charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist/Jai Nath Prajapati.
After recording the statement of the P.W.-1 Raj Kumari/informant, P.W.-2 Nagendra Ram Prajapati
and P.W.-3 Harendra Pratap Prajapati, the revisionist had been summoned under section 319
Cr.P.C. (corresponding section 358 B.N.S.S., 2023).

5. Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. and section 358(1) B.N.S.S., 2023, are produced hereinbelow:

"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 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."

Section 358. 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 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."

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has
summoned the revisionist, Jai Nath Prajapati, without recording its satisfaction that the evidence
against him was sufficient to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that
the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 was passed without proper appreciation of all the evidence
collected during the investigation. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that there was no
evidence sufficient for summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and despite this, the
revisionist was summoned. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., 1994 (1) SCC (Cri) 1390. In the
said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided two appeals under Section 2(a) of the Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, against the judgment of the
1 All. Jai Nath Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
831
Allahabad High Court, whereby the appeal of the respondent State was allowed and the acquittal of
the appellants in both the appeals was set aside. It has been submitted that the appreciation of
evidence required at the stage of summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to the same
extent as is required for final appreciation of evidence at the

7. In view of the aforesaid, the law laid down in Mehraj Singh (supra) does not exactly
support the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists in the present criminal revision.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sagar v. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 (6) SCC 389. He has placed reliance
on paragraph no. 9 of the said judgment, wherein the Constitution Bench has cautioned that the
power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which should be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It has
further been observed that the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of the satisfaction to
an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Learned Single Judge of
the High Court has even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by this Court while
invoking section 319 of the Code, which has been considered by the learned trial judge under its
order dated 30.01.2018.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further relied upon the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another, 2021
(12) SCC 608. In paragraph 10, it has been observed as follows:

"10. We say this for the following reason: The test as laid down by the Constitution
Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle
that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and
cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is more than
prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges."

10. Learned counsel for the revisionists has vehemently relied upon the evidence and the
statements collected and recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the F.I.R. was
lodged with a delay of 15 hours and, therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged after due consultation.

11. However, it is to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant is
the wife of the deceased, and she has clearly stated in her F.I.R. that after the incident her condition
was not normal; hence, she came on the next day to lodge the F.I.R. The delay in lodging the F.I.R.
is not fatal if a proper explanation exists. Since the husband of the complainant was brutally
murdered, her mental condition could not be expected to be normal. In such circumstances, the first
priority would naturally be to arrange medical assistance and to reach a medical centre. Therefore,
the delay in lodging the F.I.R. appears to be reasonable.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the complainant herself
stated that the deceased died on the spot without any medical consultation. However, it has to be
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
viewed holistically that after the deceased was hit by firearm injuries, he was taken by the
complainant and co-villagers to the Community Health Centre, where he was declared brought
dead. The F.I.R. was lodged thereafter. Hence, the presumption of the complainant that her
husband died on the spot has substance. Nevertheless, confirmation of death or provision of
treatment to a grievously injured or apparently dead person must be made by an established
medical practitioner. Ordinarily, every effort is made to seek medical consultation even when,
prima facie, it appears that the person has died due to firearm injuries.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon the statement of the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
contending that there are serious contradictions in her statement, which are not sufficient for
summoning the revisionists. He has further objected to the statements of the alleged eyewitness Sri
Nagendra Ram Prajapati and the additional statement of the complainant.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionists has additionally submitted that there are contradictions
in the statement of Harendra Pratap Prajapati and no sufficient evidence was found against the
revisionists during the investigation, as a result of which their names were exonerated; despite this,
they have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that there are material
improvements in the statements recorded before the court during the trial of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, and
P.W.-3. Such improvements are not permissible in law and have not been properly appreciated. The
learned trial court had not recorded the satisfaction prior to summoning the revisionist under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

16. It is settled law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of
Punjab, (2014) (3) SCC 902 that the word "evidence" used under section 319(1) Cr.P.C. indicates,
the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial.

17. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon section 2(g) of Cr.P.C., 1973 as
follows-"inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a
Magistrate or Court. The present matter pertains to section 319 Cr.P.C. where the matter has to be
considered of the evidences regarding trial because that constitute as evidence as held in Hardeep
Singh (supra).

18. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2025) 2 SCC 621 that the trial court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of
evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or the
case diary because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute
evidence. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Baran Versus State of U.P., 2025 SCC
Online SC 1417 that the trial court can exercise power to summon an additional accused under
section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not any other material
collected during investigation. It is held in Hardeep Singh (supra) that summoning of accused
under section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled, that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be
used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under section 319
1 All. Jai Nath Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
833
Cr.P.C., court must consider whether more than prima facie case made out, or not, mere prima facie
case is not sufficient.

19. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon and discussed the crossexamination of P.W.-1/Raj Kumari, P.W.-2/Nagendra Ram Prajapati, and P.W.-3/Harendra Pratap
Prajapati. However, the final appreciation of evidence is to be undertaken by the trial court after
considering all the material collected during the trial, whether in examination-in-chief or crossexamination, in a meticulous manner. At the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., such final and
meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither justified nor permissible.

20. It is settled law that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation do
not constitute substantive evidence; they can only be used for the purpose of contradiction of the
statements recorded during the trial by prosecution witnesses.

21. Raj Kumari (P.W.-1), in her examination-in-chief, has specifically deposed that the
accused Ravi Gautam, Bhim Gautam, Jai Nath Prajapati, Mohd. Usman, and some unknown
persons stopped the motorcycle of her husband, fired at him, and thereafter fled from the spot. She
further stated that her husband died on the spot. P.W.-2 Nagendra Ram Prajapati, in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that there was previous enmity between the deceased and Ravi
Gautam, Bhim Gautam, Jai Nath Prajapati, and Mohd. Usman, all of whom are residents of the
same village. The enmity was related to a land dispute. He specifically deposed that all four
accused persons fired at Faujdar Prajapati, as a result of which he died on the spot. P.W.-3
Harendra Pratap Prajapati, who examined himself as P.W.-3, supported the prosecution version and
specifically deposed that Ravi Gautam, Bhim Gautam, Jai Nath Prajapati, and Mohd. Usman, due
to previous enmity, committed the murder of Faujdar Prajapati by firing with firearms.

22. The final interpretation or appreciation of the evidence is neither required nor permissible
at this stage of the present criminal revision by this Court, as it may cause prejudice to the accused
persons.

23. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asim Akhtar Versus State of West Bengal,
2024 NSC 794 that complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided
with or without conducting the cross examination of the complainant and other prosecution
witnesses, and there is no mandate to decide the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before cross
examination of other witnesses.

24. Hence, the evidence recorded during the trial, along with all the facts and circumstances of
the case, clearly establishes that the evidence against the revisionist collected during the trial is
more than a prima facie case against the accused/revisionist. Any contradictions in the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, or any improvements, if at all, noticed
during the trial, are matters to be considered by the learned trial court after completion of the entire
evidence and at the conclusion of the trial.

25. The evidence available before the learned trial court at the time of summoning the
revisionist/accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was sufficient for exercising such power.
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Accordingly, the learned trial court rightly passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2025,
summoning the accused/revisionist Jai Nath Prajapati. There is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order dated 12.11.2025.

26. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 834
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 629 of 2024

Parveen Bano ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Magistrate committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in exercising
discretion by declining to pass an order for registration of F.I.R. u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and instead directing that
the application be registered and proceeded with as a complaint case.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 156(3), 200 - Registration of FIR - Plea of -
Cognizable offences - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - According to the facts of the case,
on 17.09.2023 when the revisionist was cleaning the back side of the house, the opposite
party nos. 2 to 5 came there and due to old enmity they started abusing her - On being
stopped by her, they started beating her by kicks and fists and when her daughter came to
rescue her, they took her daughter with intention to commit illegal act - Further, an
application was given by revisionist to the police for registration of F.I.R. and a copy of the
same was also sent to the S.P. but no report was registered - Thereafter, revisionist had
approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge alleging specific acts
constituting criminal offences and prayed for a direction to the police authorities to
register and investigate the matter, however, upon consideration of the averments made
in the application as filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the material placed on record, the
Magistrate exercised judicial discretion and directed that the application be registered as a
complaint case, to be proceeded with in accordance with law - Aggrieved by the said order
declining to order registration of the F.I.R. and opting to treat the application as a
complaint case, the revisionist filed the instant criminal revision before the High Court. (E11)

Held: In the instant case, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the fact of case declined to pass an
order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. but registered the said application as complaint case
and registered the case for recording statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - The learned
Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because it is in discretion of
the learned Magistrate to register any application filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case - Hence,
the criminal revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. [Para 9]