# Jamin & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-01
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2399 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jamin-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51833
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 319, 397, 401
& 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148 & 302/149
- Summoning of additional accused -
Revisional powers - Ends of justice - Trial
court's
power
to
summon
additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. not
limited by conclusion of trial against
original accused - High Court's revisional
powers to secure ends of justice. (Para
24-30)

(B)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319 - Scope and Power
of Summoning Additional Accused - Power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised only during the pendency of trial
before the pronouncement of conviction
or acquittal - If the trial against the
originally
summoned
accused
is
concluded, a summoning order under
Section 319 is not sustainable. (Para -12)

(C)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319(4) - Fresh Trial and
Rehearing of Witnesses - Once a person is
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
proceedings against them shall commence
afresh, and witnesses will be re-heard -
held - Conclusion of trial against the other
accused persons, who had been summoned
originally, does not cause any prejudice to the
applicant, as the trial against the applicants
would be held afresh and they will have the
right to defend themselves in accordance with
the law.
(Para 24)

Applicants summoned to face trial in connection
with an FIR - for murder of complainant's
brother - Initially, charges were filed only
against two accused - investigation against
applicants was pending - Several applications
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were filed to summon
applicants - which were rejected - revision
allowed application to be reconsidered - leading
to impugned order summoning applicants in
2024 - trial against others had concluded -
Applicants cannot be summoned now - Court
upheld trial court's decision - finding no
jurisdictional
error
and
noting
sufficient
evidence against the applicants.(Para 1 - 23 )

HELD: - Impugned order does not stand
vitiated merely because trial against other
accused
persons
stands
concluded.
Nonsummoning of accused persons against whom
there was ample evidence warranting their trial,
would defeat the ends of justice. Order rejecting
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was set
aside by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction and it is only thereafter, that the trial
Court has summoned the applicants under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Any interference with the
order summoning the applicants to face trial
would in fact defeat the ends of justice, which
would be contrary to the object for which the
inherent powers of this Court are meant to be
exercised. (Para - 25 ,29,30)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Jamin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
565
(supra) as well as in Avtar Singh (supra),
we do not find any good ground to interfere
in the order passed by the Tribunal.

18. However, as observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ravindra Kumar (supra) that employee is
not entitled for any arrears of salary for the
period during which he has not served, and
the same was also taken care by the
Tribunal in its order, accordingly, both writ
petitions are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2399 of 2024

Jamin & Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 319, 397, 401
& 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148 & 302/149
- Summoning of additional accused -
Revisional powers - Ends of justice - Trial
court's
power
to
summon
additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. not
limited by conclusion of trial against
original accused - High Court's revisional
powers to secure ends of justice. (Para
24-30)

(B)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319 - Scope and Power
of Summoning Additional Accused - Power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised only during the pendency of trial
before the pronouncement of conviction
or acquittal - If the trial against the
originally
summoned
accused
is
concluded, a summoning order under
Section 319 is not sustainable. (Para -12)

(C)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319(4) - Fresh Trial and
Rehearing of Witnesses - Once a person is
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
proceedings against them shall commence
afresh, and witnesses will be re-heard -
held - Conclusion of trial against the other
accused persons, who had been summoned
originally, does not cause any prejudice to the
applicant, as the trial against the applicants
would be held afresh and they will have the
right to defend themselves in accordance with
the law.
(Para 24)

Applicants summoned to face trial in connection
with an FIR - for murder of complainant's
brother - Initially, charges were filed only
against two accused - investigation against
applicants was pending - Several applications
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were filed to summon
applicants - which were rejected - revision
allowed application to be reconsidered - leading
to impugned order summoning applicants in
2024 - trial against others had concluded -
Applicants cannot be summoned now - Court
upheld trial court's decision - finding no
jurisdictional
error
and
noting
sufficient
evidence against the applicants.(Para 1 - 23 )

HELD: - Impugned order does not stand
vitiated merely because trial against other
accused
persons
stands
concluded.
Nonsummoning of accused persons against whom
there was ample evidence warranting their trial,
would defeat the ends of justice. Order rejecting
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was set
aside by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction and it is only thereafter, that the trial
Court has summoned the applicants under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Any interference with the
order summoning the applicants to face trial
would in fact defeat the ends of justice, which
would be contrary to the object for which the
inherent powers of this Court are meant to be
exercised. (Para - 25 ,29,30)
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj., (2023)
1 SCC 289

2. Krishnan Vs Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman,
the learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicants have prayed for quashing of the
order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Court
No. 4, Hardoi in Misc. Case No. 448 of
2021 in Session Trial No. 582 of 2009,
summoning the applicants to face trial of
the offence alleged in F.I.R. No. 523 of
2009 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149
IPC, Police Station Bilgram, District
Hardoi.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that on 14.04.2009 one Waris (father of the
opposite party no. 2) had lodged F.I.R. No.
523 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148,
302/149 IPC, in Police Station Bilgram,
District Hardoi against 5 persons, including
the applicants, stating that when the
complainant was going to his fields at
about 02:15 p.m. with his brother Arif, the
accused persons met them on the way and
on the exhortation of the applicants and one
Irfan alias Munna, the other accused
persons Irshad and Abdul Aziz fired shots
by pistols. The complainant's brother got
injured and he fell down on the spot. Upon
hearing the gun-shot and the cries of the
complainant, Zaheer Khan and Jaipal
reached on the spot and challenged the
accused persons whereupon they ran away.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was submitted on 14.07.2009 against Irshad
and Irfan for offences under Sections 147,
148, 149 and 302 IPC and the investigation
against the applicants remained pending.
The trial Court tool cognizance of the
offences and summoned Irshad and Irfan to
face the trial.

5. An application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the other
named accused persons also, but it was
rejected by means of an order dated
29.01.2010 for the reason that the witnesses
PW-1 and PW-2 were yet to be crossexamined.

6. The complainant challenged the
order dated 29.01.2010 by filing Criminal
Revision No. 203 of 2010 and this Court
disposed off the revision by means of an
order dated 14.05.2010 by observing that
the prayer for summoning the accused
persons be considered after the crossexamination of the witnesses was over.

7. After cross-examination of PW-1
and PW-2, the complainant again filed an
application for summoning the rest of the
accused persons under section 319 Cr.P.C.,
but this too was rejected by means of an
order dated 19.07.2010. The complainant
filed Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2010,
challenging the order dated 19.07.2010.

8. During pendency of Criminal
Revision No. 400 of 2010 before this
Court, the trial was concluded by the
judgment and order dated 19.10.2011
4 All. Jamin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
567
wherein it was held that the accused
persons Irshad and Irfan created an
unlawful assembly with the other accused
persons and they killed the deceased Arif
by shooting at him with a firearm. The
accused persons Irshad and Irfan were
convicted for offences under Sections 147,
148, 302/149 I.P.C. and they were
acquitted of rest of the charges by means of
a judgment and order dated 19.10.2011
passed by the trial Court. They were
sentenced
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year for
the offence under Section 147 I.P.C., two
years for the offence under Section 148
I.P.C. and life imprisonment and payment
of Rs.5,000/- fine for the offence under
Section 302/149 I.P.C. and to undergo
imprisonment for six months in case of
failure to pay fine.

9. Irshad and Irfan filed Criminal
Appeal No. 1886 of 2011 challenging the
aforesaid judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, which is still pending.

10. Criminal Revision No. 400 of
2010 was allowed by means of a judgment
and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by this
Court whereby the order dated 19.07.2010
was set aside and the application was
directed
to
be
decided
afresh.
On
22.09.2021, the complainant again filed an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in
compliance of the order dated 14.09.2021
passed by this Court in Criminal Revision
No. 200 of 2021. This application was
allowed by means of the impugned order
dated 21.02.2024.

11. The trial Court has held in the
impugned order dated 21.02.2024 that the
prosecution witnesses have stated that the
incident was given effect to by the
convicted persons along with the applicants
and Abdul Aziz under a common intention.
Abdul Aziz has died. A prima facie case
was made out against the applicants for
their trial.

12. Challenging validity of the
aforesaid order summoning the applicants
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned
Counsel for the applicants has submitted
that the trial Court can summon any person
under section 319 Cr.P.C. only during
pendency of the trial whereas in the present
case, the trial stood concluded long before
passing of the order under Section 319
Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the order is without
jurisdiction. In support of this submission,
the learned Counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh
Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC
289, wherein it was held that: -

"39.(I) Whether the trial court
has the power under Section 319CrPC for
summoning additional accused when the
trial with respect to other co-accused has
ended and the judgment of conviction
rendered
on
the
same
date
before
pronouncing the summoning order?

The power under Section 319
CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before
the pronouncement of the order of sentence
where there is a judgment of conviction of
the accused. In the case of acquittal, the
power should be exercised before the order
of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the
summoning order has to precede the
conclusion of trial by imposition of
sentence in the case of conviction. If the
order is passed on the same day, it will
have to be examined on the facts and
circumstances of each case and if such
summoning order is passed either after the
order of acquittal or imposing sentence in
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of conviction, the same will not be
sustainable.

40.(II) Whether the trial court has
the power under Section 319 CrPC for
summoning additional accused when the
trial in respect of certain other absconding
accused (whose presence is subsequently
secured) is ongoing/pending, having been
bifurcated from the main trial?

The trial court has the power to
summon additional accused when the trial
is proceeded in respect of the absconding
accused after securing his presence,
subject to the evidence recorded in the
split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the
involvement of the accused sought to be
summoned. But the evidence recorded in
the main concluded trial cannot be the
basis of the summoning order if such power
has not been exercised in the main trial till
its conclusion.

41.(III) What are the guidelines
that the competent court must follow while
exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?

41.1. If the competent court finds
evidence or if application under Section
319 CrPC is filed regarding involvement of
any other person in committing the offence
based on evidence recorded at any stage in
the trial before passing of the order on
acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the
trial at that stage.

41.2. The court shall thereupon
first decide the need or otherwise to
summon the additional accused and pass
orders thereon.

41.3. If the decision of the court
is to exercise the power under Section 319
CrPC and summon the accused, such
summoning order shall be passed before
proceeding further with the trial in the
main case.

41.4. If the summoning order of
additional accused is passed, depending on
the stage at which it is passed, the court
shall also apply its mind to the fact as to
whether such summoned accused is to be
tried along with the other accused or
separately.

41.5. If the decision is for joint
trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced
only after securing the presence of the
summoned accused.

41.6. If the decision is that the
summoned accused can be tried separately,
on such order being made, there will be no
impediment for the court to continue and
conclude the trial against the accused who
were being proceeded with.

41.7. If the proceeding paused as
in para 41.1 above, is in a case where the
accused who were tried are to be acquitted,
and the decision is that the summoned
accused can be tried afresh separately,
there will be no impediment to pass the
judgment of acquittal in the main case.

41.8. If the power is not invoked
or exercised in the main trial till its
conclusion and if there is a split-up
(bifurcated) case, the power under Section
319 CrPC can be invoked or exercised only
if there is evidence to that effect, pointing
to the involvement of the additional
accused to be summoned in the split-up
(bifurcated) trial.

41.9. If, after arguments are
heard and the case is reserved for judgment
the occasion arises for the Court to invoke
4 All. Jamin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
569
and exercise the power under Section
319CrPC, the appropriate course for the
court is to set it down for re-hearing.

41.10. On setting it down for rehearing, the above laid down procedure to
decide about summoning; holding of joint
trial or otherwise shall be decided and
proceeded with accordingly.

41.11. Even in such a case, at
that stage, if the decision is to summon
additional accused and hold a joint trial
the trial shall be conducted afresh and de
novo proceedings be held.

mmoned accused as indicated
earlier:

(a) The main case may be decided
by
pronouncing
the
conviction
and
sentence and then proceed afresh against
summoned accused.

(b) In the case of acquittal the
order shall be passed to that effect in the
main case and then proceed afresh against
summoned accused."

13. Before proceeding any further, it
would be appropriate to have a look at the
statutory provision contained in Section
319 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: -

"319. Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it
appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any
offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court
may proceed against such person for the
offence
which
he
appears
to
have
committed.

(2) Where such person is not
attending the Court, he may be arrested or
summoned, as the circumstances of the
case
may
require,
for
the
purpose
aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the
Court, although not under arrest or upon a
summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds
against any person under sub-section (1)
then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of
such person shall be commenced afresh,
and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of
clause (a), the case may proceed as if such
person had been an accused person when
the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced."

14. The limitations put by the words
"in the course of any inquiry into, or trial
of, an offence" used in Section 319 Cr.P.C.
and explained in Sukhpar Singh Khaira
(Supra), are in respect of the powers of the
trial Court to summon an accused person
under this power.

15. In the present case, the applicants
were named in the F.I.R. and it was alleged
that when the complainant was going to his
fields with his brother, on the exhortation
of the applicants, the other accused persons
Irshad and Abdul Aziz had killed the
complainant's brother by firing shots with
pistols. The investigating officer had
submitted a charge-sheet against Irshad and
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Irfan on 14.07.2009 and the investigation
remained pending against the applicant and
it was never concluded. The complainant
had filed an application under Section
319
Cr.P.C.
for
summoning
the
applicants during pendency of the trial,
after recording of examination-in-chief of
prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2,
but it was rejected on 29.01.2010 for the
reason that the witnesses were yet to be
cross-examined. After cross-examination
of PW-1 and PW-2, the complainant
again filed an application for summoning
the rest of the accused persons under
section 319 Cr.P.C., but this too was
rejected by means of an order dated
19.07.2010.
The
complainant
filed
Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2010,
challenging the order dated 19.07.2010.

16. During pendency of Criminal
Revision No. 400 of 2010 before this
Court, the trial was concluded by the
judgment and order dated 19.10.2011
wherein it was held that the accused
persons Irshad and Irfan created an
unlawful assembly with the other accused
persons and they filled the deceased Arif
by shooting at him with a firearm. The
accused persons Irshad and Irfan were
convicted and sentenced for offences
under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C.
and they were acquitted of rest of the
charges by means of a judgment and
order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the trial
Court.

17. It appears that the fact of
pendency of Criminal Revision No. 400
of 2010 was not brought to the notice of
the trial Court.

18 . Irshad and Irfan filed Criminal
Appeal No. 1886 of 2011 challenging the
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
of
conviction and sentence, which is still
pending.

19. Criminal Revision No. 400 of
2010 was allowed by means of a judgment
and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by this
Court whereby the order dated 19.07.2010
was set aside and the application was
directed to be decided afresh. Although the
applicant was represented through an
Advocate in Criminal Revision No. 400 of
2010, it appears that the applicant's
Counsel did not appear to assist the Court
at the time of decision of the revision and
the fact of the trial having been concluded
and the accused persons having been
convicted and sentenced, was not brought
to the notice of this Court while it was
deciding the revision.

20. It is in compliance of the order
dated 14.09.2021 passed by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, that
the trial Court has passed the impugned
order deciding the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

21. The power of revision is conferred
by Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads thus: -

"397. Calling for records to
exercise of powers of revision.-(1) The
High Court or any Sessions Judge may call
for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court situate within its or his local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed, and
as to the regularity of any proceedings of
such inferior Court, and may, when calling
for such record, direct that the execution of
any sentence or order be suspended, and if
the accused is in confinement, that he be
4 All. Jamin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
571
released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.-All
Magistrates,
whether Executive or Judicial, and whether
exercising
original
or
appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior
to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of
this sub-section and of Section 398.

(2) The powers of revision
conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial
or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this
section has been made by any person either
to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge,
no further application by the same person
shall be entertained by the other of them."

22. In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni,
(1997) 4 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court explained the scope of revisional
powers of this Court in the following
words: -

"7... Ordinarily, in the matter of
exercise of power of revision by any High
Court, Section 397 and Section 401 are
required to be read together. Section 397
gives powers to the High Court to call for
the records as also suo motu power under
Section 401 to exercise the revisional
power on the grounds mentioned therein,
i.e., to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order,
recorded or passed and as to the regularity
of any proceedings of such inferior court,
and to dispose of the revision in the manner
indicated under Section 401 of the Code.
The revisional power of the High Court
merely conserves the power of the High
Court to see that justice is done in
accordance with the recognised rules of
criminal
jurisprudence
and
that
its
subordinate courts do not exceed the
jurisdiction or abuse the power vested in
them under the Code or to prevent abuse of
the process of the inferior criminal courts
or to prevent miscarriage of justice."

23. The ultimate aim of every
investigation and inquiry, whether by the
police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that
the actual perpetrators of the crime are
correctly booked and the innocents are not
arraigned to stand trial. If the police does
not conclude investigation against some of
the accused persons and the trial Court also
does not summon the accused persons after
enquiry or during trial and it wrongly
rejects an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C., there are no limitations on the
powers of this Court under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. to revise and reverse an order
passed rejecting an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. merely because the
trial against the originally summoned
accused persons stood concluded during
pendency of the revision and has resulted in
conviction and sentence of those accused
persons, more particularly when the trial
Court has recorded that incident was given
effect to at the exhortation of the persons
sought to be summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C.

24. Section 319 (4) Cr.P.C. provides
that where the Court proceeds against any
person under sub-section (1) of Section 319
then the proceedings in respect of such
person shall be commenced afresh, and the
witnesses
re-heard.
Therefore,
the
conclusion of trial against the other accused
persons,
who
had
been
summoned
originally, does not cause any prejudice to
the applicant, as the trial against the
applicants would be held afresh and they
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
will have the right to defend themselves in
accordance with the law.

25. Therefore, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered view that the
impugned order dated 21.02.2024 does
not stand vitiated merely because the trial
against the other accused persons stands
concluded.

26. The learned Counsel for the
applicant next submitted that a person
cannot be summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C. on the basis of a mere probability
of complicity and the crucial test is that
the evidence would lead to his conviction
if it goes unrebutted. In support of this
contention, he has placed reliance on the
Constitution Bench judgment in the case
of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was held
that: -

"117.5. Though under Section
319(4)(b) CrPC the accused subsequently
impleaded is to be treated as if he had
been an accused when the court initially
took cognizance of the offence, the degree
of satisfaction that will be required for
summoning a person under Section 319
CrPC would be the same as for framing a
charge. The difference in the degree of
satisfaction for summoning the original
accused and a subsequent accused is on
account of the fact that the trial may have
already commenced against the original
accused and it is in the course of such
trial that materials are disclosed against
the newly summoned accused. Fresh
summoning of an accused will result in
delay of the trial therefore the degree of
satisfaction for summoning the accused
(original and subsequent) has to be
different."

27. In the present case, the
witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have stated
about that the previously tried accused
had shot at the victim at the exhortation
of
the
applicant.
The
trial
stands
concluded by the judgment and order
dated 19.10.2011 wherein it was held that
the accused persons Irshad and Irfan
created an unlawful assembly with the
other accused persons and they killed the
deceased Arif by shooting at him with a
firearm. In case the aforesaid evidence
remains unrebutted, the same would lead
to conviction of the applicant.

28. Therefore, there is no illegality
in the order summoning the applicant
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

29. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
make such orders as may be necessary to
secure
the
ends
of
justice.
Nonsummoning of accused persons against
whom
there
was
ample
evidence
warranting their trial, would defeat the
ends of justice. The order rejecting the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
was set aside by this Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction and it is only
thereafter, that the trial Court has
summoned the applicants under Section
319 Cr.P.C. Any interference with the
order summoning the applicants to face
trial would in fact defeat the ends of
justice, which would be contrary to the
object for which the inherent powers of
this Court are meant to be exercised.

30. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the application filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the
same is hereby dismissed.
----------
4 All. Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
573
(2024) 4 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2713 of 2024

Ms. Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Keshav Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 406,420 - Constitutional
Law - Fundamental Rights - Passport Act
- Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g), 21; Right
to travel abroad as part of personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and
19(1)(g) Notification dated 25.08.1993;
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 -
Passport - Personal Liberty - Travel
Abroad - Fundamental Right - Right to a
passport is a fundamental right of
Indian citizens - Right to travel abroad
as part of personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) - No
statutory bar for granting no objection
for
passport
renewal/issue
during
pendency of criminal case; discretion
with court. (Para - 10,11,12)

Applicant's passport renewal/re-issue rejected
by trial court; applicant filed Section 482
Cr.P.C. application.(Para 10-13)

HELD: - Impugned order rejecting passport
renewal/re-issue set aside; fresh application
to be decided within one month. (Para 12-13)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E7)
List of Cases cited:

1. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. ,1978 (1) SCC 248

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

1. Heard Ms Priti Singh, Advocate
assisted by Sri Pramod K. Tiwari, Sanklan
Porwal and Sri Keshav Prasad, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate
and Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned
counsel for the Union of India and Sri
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been for grant of
permission/No objection for issuance of
Passport to the applicant Mrs. Sapna @
Sapna Choudhary D/o Sh. Bhupender @
Bhupender Attri presently residing at: ATS
Kocoon, Flat No. 5041, Section 109,
Gurugram, Haryana in Case Crime No.
621/2018, under Section 406/420 I.P.C.,
Police Sattion Ashiyana, District Lucknow
in so far it relates to the applicant, pending
in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 29, District Lucknow
be setting aside order dated 21.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that on 13.10.2018, the respondent
No.2 who is posed as Sub-Inspector at
Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow
lodged a compaint/application against the
applicant and others. Upon the aforesaid
application on 14.10.2018, an F.I.R. got
registered in Case Crime No. 0621 of 2018,
under Section 406/420 I.P.C. Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that passport was issued to the
applicant by Regisional Passport Office