# Jalil Ahmad Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1997 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2026 - **Bench:** Manoj Baja - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jalil-ahmad-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54449 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 4 All. Jalil Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1997 (iv) The appellant had a right to raise an objection regarding the legality of the appointment of the Arbitrator even in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it is a matter which goes to the roots of the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to make an award. 91. For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the Commercial Court-II, Lucknow dated 19.04.2023 passed in Arbitration Case No. 766 of 2019 is set aside, so also the award dated 26.04.2019 is set aside. It will be open for the parties to get a fresh Arbitrator appointed in accordance with law for settlement of their disputes. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1997 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2026 Jalil Ahmad ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Issues for Consideration (i) Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Kallu and Chandani as additional accused after they had been exonerated during investigation? (ii) Whether the depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 disclosed strong and cogent evidence warranting exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.? (iii) Whether vague and omnibus allegations in the F.I.R. and prosecution evidence, unsupported by specific overt acts, constitute sufficient material for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.? Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Extraordinary power - Nature and scope. HELD: The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial indicating involvement of a person not facing trial in the commission of the offence. Mere naming of a person in the F.I.R. or existence of suspicion is insufficient to justify summoning as an additional accused. The evidence must satisfy the higher degree of satisfaction contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Para 9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Persons exonerated during investigation - General and omnibus allegations - Absence of specific role - Summoning declined. HELD: Though Kallu and Chandani were named in the F.I.R., the allegations against them were vague and lacked any specific attribution regarding demand of dowry or participation in the alleged offence. The F.I.R. merely alleged that Kallu informed the complainant about the death of his daughter, while no specific instance 1998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of cruelty or harassment was attributed to Chandani. Such omnibus allegations did not constitute sufficient material for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 6 and 7] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Evidence recorded during trial - Improvements over F.I.R. - Material omissions - Effect. HELD: The deposition of P.W.-1 contained material improvements over the version disclosed in the F.I.R. The allegation that the deceased had narrated incidents of cruelty to her mother during her visit to the parental home was absent from the F.I.R., and the mother herself was not examined as a prosecution witness. Further, the testimony of P.W.-1 did not disclose that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 possessed any direct knowledge of the occurrence or of the alleged acts of the proposed accused. Consequently, the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 did not materially strengthen the prosecution case against Kallu and Chandani. [Paras 7 and 8] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Additional accused - Relative not residing in matrimonial home - Absence of evidence connecting him with offence. HELD: During the course of hearing, it was fairly admitted that Kallu was merely the cousin of the father-inlaw of the deceased and was not residing in the matrimonial home. In the absence of specific evidence establishing his participation in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand, no case for summoning him as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was made out. [Para 9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 397 and 401 - Revision - Order rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Interference. HELD: The trial court assigned cogent reasons for declining to summon Kallu and Chandani as additional accused and correctly held that the evidence on record did not satisfy the standard required for exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. [Paras 9 and 10] Revision dismissed. Clarified that the observations made in the order shall remain confined to adjudication of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (E-14) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts / Statutes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. List of Keywords Additional accused; Dowry death; Exoneration during investigation; General allegations; Omnibus allegations; Specific role; Strong evidence; Revisional jurisdiction; Dowry demand; Matrimonial cruelty. Case Arising From Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2023, State v. Taufiq and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2023, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Marka, District Banda. Appearance for Parties For the Appellants: Sri Hari Bans Singh. For the Respondents: Learned G.A.; Sri Kameshwar Singh; and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh. 4 All. Jalil Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1999 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.) 1. Petitioner-Complainant is aggrieved against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Banda in Session Trial No.341 of 2023, State Vs. Taufiq and others, arising out of Case Crime No.15 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Marka, district Banda, whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief leading to the revision petition are that the complainant gave a written complaint to the police wherein it is alleged that his daughter-Sifa was married on 12.05.2022 as per Muslim rites and rituals with Taufiq, son of Sarvar Ali and sufficient dowry was given by him, but Taufiq, his parents-Sarvar Ali and Safeena, his uncle-Kallu and sister-Chandani harassed his daughter and continuously demanded Rs.1 lac as well as a motor-cycle. On 15.01.2023 there was some altercation between the couple and he got this information on mobile phone, and his attempt to meet his daughter failed as the accused were adamant on their demand of dowry. On 26.01.2023 at about 1:10 p.m. the complainant talked to Taufiq on his mobile phone and his daughter was also online when she informed him to take her back, otherwise she would be killed by all the accused persons. The conversation went on for twenty minutes and finally after sometime Kallu informed the complainant that his daughter is no more who died of hanging. The complainant reached there and found that the feet of the dead-body were touching the ground, who in his complaint to police requested for necessary action against the accused persons. Broadly on these allegations F.I.R. was registered on 28.01.2023 against five persons, namely, Taufiq, Sarvar Ali, Safeena, Kallu and Chandani. 3. Thereafter, the investigation in the crime was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against three persons, namely, Taufiq-husband, Sarvar Ali-father-in-law, Safeena-Mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Kallu and Chandani were declared innocent. 4. After commencement of trial proceedings, the prosecution examined three witnesses, namely, Jalil Ahmad (PW-1), Barkat Ali (PW-2) and Shakun (PW-3), and thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for summoning Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused to face the trial, which has been dismissed through impugned order 06.11.2025. Hence this revision petition. 5. Sri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-petitioner has argued that Sifa, daughter of the complainant got married to Taufiq on 12.05.202, and she met her unnatural death on 26.01.2023 in her matrimonial home and from the very beginning the complainant had levelled allegations of demand of dowry against all five accused persons but during investigation, Chandani and Kallu were declared innocent. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) to point out that the allegations against Chandani also reveal her participation in commission of crime, therefore, exoneration of these two persons by police is unjustified. He referred to the testimony of PW-1 recorded during trial to point out that specific allegations were levelled by the complainant against all the accused persons regarding cruelty meted out to his daughter resulting in her death, therefore, application under Section 319 2000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Cr.P.C. was moved to summon these two persons as an additional accused, and the trial court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while rejecting the application. The reference is also made to the evidence/testimonies of PW-2-Barkat Ali and PW-3-Shakun to contend that these two witnesses also supported the stand of PW-1, despite that the trial court has proceeded to reject the application thereby causing miscarriage of justice to the complainant. He prays that the impugned order be set aside and opposite party nos.2 and 3 be summoned. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions, this Court finds that the initial version given by the complainant is recorded in the F.I.R. and it only narrates about the date of marriage and alleged cruelty meted out to his daughter who later met an unnatural death and the allegations are not specific much less against Kallu, cousin of Sarvar Ali, who as per F.I.R. only informed the complainant about demise of his daughter. Similarly the allegations against Chandani are vague and do not attribute any specific instance of maltreating his daughter. 7. Further a perusal of the deposition of the complainant recorded as PW-1 during trial would show that on 15.01.2023 when there was an altercation between the couple he in fact met his daughter, but only narrated about his inability to meet the alleged demand of dowry, and in the said statement no specific attribution is against Chandani and Kallu. Though in the version contained in the F.I.R., it is the stand of the complainant that despite his attempts to meet his daughter he was not allowed to meet her. 8. That apart, the deposition of the complainant is based on the alleged disclosure made by his daughter to his wife when she visited her parental home after marriage but this version is completely missing in the F.I.R. and the mother has not been examined as a prosecution witness. The entire evidence of PW-1 does not mention about the knowledge of the alleged crime to PW-2 and PW-3 much less their involvement in talking to the daughter of the complainant. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 does not at all stand at a better footing than the deposition of PW-1. 9. By now it is a well settled law that the power vested with the trial court to summon any person as an additional accused who has not been sent to face trial is extraordinary in nature and has to be invoked in cases where during trial strong evidence emerges to point out the involvement of some other person as well in commission of crime. During the course of the hearing it is fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that Kallu, son of Gulab Ali is cousin of Sarvar Ali and he was not residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant's daughter. 10. Thus, considering the material on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence on record is not enough for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and trial court has rightly proceeded to reject the application vide order dated 06.11.2025. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has given valid reasons in refusing to summon Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference i.e. to. exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made in the order are only in respect of the adjudication relating to the impugned order dated 06.11.2025. 4 All. Neeru Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2001 ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 2001 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Criminal Revision No. 4150 of 2024 & other connected cases Neeru ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Issues for Consideration (i) Whether the ex parte order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was liable to be set aside under Section 126 Cr.P.C. on the plea that the husband had not been effectively served? (ii) Whether grant of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was impermissible where maintenance had already been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.? (iii) Whether enhancement of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act was justified having regard to the husband's income, the growing needs of the minor son and the prevailing cost of living? (iv) Whether the recovery warrants issued for enforcement of the maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. called for interference? Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 125 and 126 - Maintenance - Ex parte order - Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings - Knowledge of proceedings admitted by husband - Failure to contest proceedings on legal advice - Effect. HELD: The husband admitted in his application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. that he had knowledge of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and had consciously chosen not to contest the claim on the advice of his counsel. A Government employee, having knowledge of pending proceedings, cannot subsequently seek recall of an ex parte maintenance order merely by pleading ineffective service. The Family Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 126 Cr.P.C., as the husband failed to establish any sufficient cause for his absence. [Paras 8 and 9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 125 and 126 - Maintenance - Suppression of income by husband - Assessment of maintenance. HELD: The husband neither contested the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor disclosed his actual income despite being employed in the State Roadways Department. Even before the High Court he failed to disclose his total income from all sources. The Court held that the conduct of the husband clearly indicated an attempt to avoid disclosure of his true financial capacity and thereby evade his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor son. [Paras 8 and 9] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintenance - Maintenance already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Subsequent award under Domestic Violence Act - Maintainability.