# Jitendra Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 910
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No 5247 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54329
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.5400/-. They would be entitled to arrears of pension on the basis of a revision thereof done from
the date they are being paid their pension, within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this judgment.

67. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated
17.02.2011 passed by the Finance Controller's Committee is hereby quashed. A mandamus is
issued to restore the petitioners' respective salaries paid to them in accordance with the 5th Pay
Commission pursuant to the Government Order dated 27.05.2004, as revised by the Government
Order dated 19.03.2010 and subsequent Government Orders, together with all arrears. The
emoluments reduced by dint of the audit report dated 24.03.2009 shall stand restored to the payscale being paid before the said report and revised on that basis with arrears worked out
accordingly. The arrears of salaries shall be paid to the petitioners in the leading writ petition
within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the respondents. The order
impugned in the connected writ petition dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of
Education (Madhyamik), Jhansi Region, Jhansi is hereby quashed. The pension payable to the
petitioners in the connected matter shall be re-determined on the last drawn salary, carrying the
grade pay of Rs.5400/-. They shall be paid arrears of pension on a revision thereof done from the
date they are being paid their pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
this judgment by the respondents.

68. Costs easy in both petitions.

69. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Director of Education (Secondary),
U.P., Lucknow, the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj, the Finance
Controller, Directorate of Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj, the Deputy Director of
Education (Sanskrit), Directorate of Education, U.P., Prayagraj, the Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary), Jhansi Region, Jhansi and the District Inspector of Schools, Chitrakoot by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 910
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision No 5247 of 2025
Alongwith
Criminal Revision No 4292 of 2023

Jitendra Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
3 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
(i) Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking
summoning of Jitendra as an additional accused solely on the basis of the F.I.R. allegations and the testimony
of the complainant (PW-1)?
(ii) Whether a second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was maintainable after dismissal of an earlier
application when additional prosecution evidence had been recorded subsequently?
(iii) Whether the testimony of PW-5 Satish, examined subsequently under Section 311 Cr.P.C., constituted
sufficient evidence to justify exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning
Jitendra as an additional accused?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Extraordinary
power - Degree of satisfaction required - Scope.

HELD: The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and cannot be exercised in a casual
manner. The trial court is justified in invoking such power only where the evidence recorded during trial
strongly suggests involvement of a person not facing trial in the commission of the offence. Mere suspicion or
existence of material falling short of the prescribed standard is insufficient to summon a person as an
additional accused. [Paras 5 and 6]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Additional accused - First application based on
F.I.R. allegations and testimony of complainant (PW-1) - Accused exonerated during
investigation - Rejection of application.

HELD: Where the accused sought to be summoned had been named in the F.I.R. but was exonerated during
investigation and the material available at the time of the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. consisted
only of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant recorded during trial, the
evidence did not satisfy the standard necessary for exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The trial
court rightly held that except for the bald allegations of the complainant, no other evidence existed on record
indicating involvement of the proposed accused and therefore correctly rejected the first application dated
12.04.2023. [Paras 4 and 6]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Successive applications - Dismissal of earlier
application - Additional evidence subsequently recorded - Maintainability.

HELD: Dismissal of an earlier application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not bar consideration of a
subsequent application where material changes have occurred during trial and additional evidence has come
on record after rejection of the first application. Where five additional prosecution witnesses had been
examined after dismissal of the earlier application, the subsequent application could not be rejected merely on
the ground that an earlier application had been dismissed. Consideration of the later application in such
circumstances does not amount to review of the earlier order prohibited by Section 362 Cr.P.C. [Paras 7 and 8]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 311 and 319 - Witness summoned under Section 311
Cr.P.C. - Evidence of PW-5 Satish - Summoning of additional accused - Sufficiency of
evidence.

HELD: Though PW-5 Satish was examined after being summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and claimed to
have witnessed the occurrence, his testimony, read along with the statement of the complainant, did not
prima facie establish involvement of Jitendra in the commission of the offence. The complainant had merely
stated that Satish informed him about the death of his daughter and nowhere stated that Satish had
witnessed the occurrence. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 taken together did not furnish the degree of
satisfaction required for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the trial
court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the second application and summoning Jitendra as an additional
accused. [Paras 9 and 10]
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Order summoning additional accused - Legality.

HELD: The order dated 18.07.2025 allowing the second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was contrary to
the settled parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under the provision and was therefore liable to be set
aside. The application dated 27.01.2025 seeking summoning of Jitendra as an additional accused was
dismissed. [Para 10]

Criminal Revision No. 4292 of 2023 dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 5247 of 2025 allowed. Order dated
18.07.2025 set aside and application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
-None-

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

List of Keywords
Additional accused; Successive applications; Extraordinary power; Summoning of accused; Exoneration during
investigation; Witness summoned by Court; Prima facie satisfaction; Review of order; Murder trial; Revisional
jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
(i) Order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2021, State v. Jainendra, arising out of Case
Crime No. 104 of 2020, Police Station Nangal, District Saharanpur, whereby the application dated 12.04.2023
filed by the informant Tejpal under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Jitendra as an additional accused was
rejected.
(ii) Order dated 18.07.2025 passed in the aforesaid Sessions Trial, whereby the subsequent application dated
27.01.2025 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and Jitendra was summoned as an additional accused.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Om Narayan Mishra
For the Respondents: Learned G.A., Sri Mohd. Kalim and Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1.The above connected petitions have been filed by rival parties, which arise from Sessions
Trial No.08 of 2021, titled State Vs. Jitendra, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2020, under
Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Nangal, district Saharanpur, whereby the first application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the informant-Tejpal on 12.04.2023 seeking summoning of Jitendra as
an additional accused was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2023, and the similar application filed
by him on 27.01.2025 was allowed vide impugned order dated 18.07.2025.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the petitions are that on the basis of a complaint by Tejpalcomplainant the subject F.I.R. was registered wherein it is alleged that his daughter-Manju was
married approximately thirteen years back with Jainendra and from this wed lock one son, namely,
Lavi was born, presently about 10 years old. The brother-in-law of his daughter was not having any
issue. The complainant's son-in-law, Jainendra is an alcoholic and the brother-in-law of
complainant's daughter wanted to adopt Lavi, and his brother-Jainendra consented for the same, but
the complainant's daughter was strongly opposing this move. The brothers considered the
complainant's daughter as an hurdle, therefore, they both on 08.04.2020 at around 2:00 p.m.
3 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
murdered her by strangulation. The information was given to the complainant by Satish, whereupon
complainant came to the house of her daughter and found her dead lying on a cot. The complainant
requested for the necessary action. Broadly on these allegations the F.I.R. was registered for
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the brothers, Jainendra and
Jitendra.

3.Thereafter, investigation was conducted in the crime and finally the charge sheet was
filed on 30.05.2020 against the husband of the deceased, namely, Jainendra, whereas his brother,
Jitendra was exonerated.

4. After commencement of trial, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW-1 whose
cross-examination concluded on 28.03.2023, and thereafter, an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was moved on 12.04.2023 seeking summoning of Jitendra as an additional accused in the
trial. The application was opposed and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated
03.07.2023, which is subject matter of Criminal Revision No.4292 of 2023.

5. During trial the prosecution examined five more witnesses and the prosecution evidence
was closed with the examination of PW-6, Sub-Inspector, Satish Prakash on 03.09.2024, and
thereafter, the complainant-Tejpal filed another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on
27.01.2025 and again prayed for summoning of Jitendra as an additional accused. The said
application stands allowed vide order dated 18.07.2025. The said order is also under challenge in
the connected revision petition filed by Jitendra.

6. Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in Criminal
Revision No.4292 of 2023 has argued that the complainant had specifically stated about the
involvement of both the brothers in commission of the murder of his daughter-Manju on
08.04.2020, and both the names were contained in the F.I.R. According to learned counsel it is the
accused Jitendra, who was desirous to adopt the only son of his brother, but his sister-in-law
(deceased) was strongly opposing the same, therefore, the brothers in agreement with each other
proceeded to commit the crime. In this regard learned counsel has referred to the contents of the
F.I.R. and argued that during investigation accused-Jitendra was wrongly declared as innocent and
charge sheet was filed only against Jainendra. He submits that even after commencement of trial,
the statement of PW-1, Tejpal clearly mentions about the involvement of Jitendra in murdering the
daughter of the complainant and the said statement is atleast sufficient for exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., but the trial court erroneously passed the impugned order dated
03.07.2023 dismissing the application. According to the learned counsel the impugned order is
against the law, therefore, it calls for interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.

7. The prayer is opposed by Sri Om Narain Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party no.2-Jitendra (in Criminal Revision No.5247 of 2025), who has argued that the
version of the complainant in the F.I.R. as well as his deposition before the trial court was not
enough to prima-facie show the involvement of Jitendra, and since there was no other evidence
against the said accused except the vague statement of the complainant, therefore, not only the
investigating officer exonerated him, but even the trial court also refused to exercise the powers
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. while dismissing the first application on 03.07.2020. Learned counsel
has referred to the impugned order to urge that the trial court has carefully examined the material
on record, particularly the deposition of PW-1, which is foundation of application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. and has rightly dismissed the application by delivering valid reasons. He prays that the
revision petition filed by Tejpal against the order dated 03.07.2023 be dismissed.

8. Sri Om Narain Mishra, learned counsel appearing in connected revision while
representing Jitendra has argued that the second application filed by Tejpal on 27.01.2025 could
not have been entertained by the trial court as this issue stood decided against him through the
verdict dated 03.07.2023. He further submits that during the pendency of revision petition
challenging the order dated 03.07.2023, the trial court proceeded to entertain the second application
and decided in favour of the complainant-Tejpal. He submits that the statement of PW-2, Lavi, who
is son of deceased and grand-son of the complainant does not lend any support to the stand of the
complainant, who in his deposition before the trial court stated that his mother had committed
suicide. According to him, though this witness was declared hostile, but his lengthy crossexamination conducted by public prosecutor did not yield any result, much less in favour of the
prosecution, or atleast to make out a prima-facie case for summoning Jitendra as an additional
accused. Learned counsel has argued that trial court has given undue importance to witness-PW-5Satish,who claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence, and solely on the basis of his
testimony the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 summoning Jitendra was passed, which stands in
stark contradiction to the first order dated 03.07.2023, and in other words the order may amount to
review of order dated 03.07.2023, which is prohibited under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel
has argued that the impugned order dated 18.07.205 is not sustainable, therefore, he prays for
setting aside the order as well as the dismissal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated
27.01.2025.

9. The complainant is represented in this petition by Sri Mohd. Kalim, Advocate, who has
argued that the prosecution case from the very beginning has referred to the phone call by PW-5Satish, who had informed Tejpal on the date of occurrence that his daughter has died, and the
statement of PW-5 Satish clearly supports the stand of complainant-Tejpal. Learned counsel has
argued that the dismissal of first application on 12.04.2023 may not have any bearing on the
subsequent application dated 27.01.2025 as there was material change during trial proceedings and
the prosecution had in fact discharged the onus by examining all witnesses including PW-5-Satish.
Learned counsel has argued that once the prosecution evidence adduced during trial suggests the
involvement of Jitendra also in the commission of crime,who was not sent to face trial alongwith
his brother-Jainendra, the trial court has rightly exercised extraordinary power vested in it in
summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. He submits that at the stage of exercising power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial court is not required to satisfy itself that the evidence on record
is likely to lead to the conviction of the persons sought to be summoned, therefore, the impugned
order does not call for any interference. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their assistance case file has
been examined carefully.
3 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
915
11. According to the prosecution case, victim Manju-daughter of the complainant died in
her matrimonial house and the complainant suspected the involvement of his son-in-law, Jainendra
and his brother Jitendra in commission of crime. As per F.I.R. the prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence and version of Tejpal contained in the F.I.R. in the context of involvement
of Jitendra was not found convincing, therefore, the said accused was not sent to face trial through
the charge-sheet filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against Jainendra. The statement of Tejpal
recorded during trial echoes the voice of his version contained in the F.I.R., but except for his bald
statement there was no other evidence by the prosecution was on record when the first application
dated 12.04.2023 seeking summoning of Jitendra as an additional accused was filed.

12. Before analyzing the merits of the petitions, it would be appropriate to have a glance of
section 319 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

 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."

13. A perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the power vested with
the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature, and by now it is settled law that
such a power can not be exercised in a casual manner. The trial court would be justified in resorting
to the above provision where the evidence recorded during trial strongly suggests about the
involvement of any other person(s), who is not before the trial court. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the material on record while adjudicating the first application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. was deficient to the standards required for exercising jurisdiction under Section 319
Cr.P.C. and the trial court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the application is without any merit.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 would show that the trial court has given valid
reasons while dismissing the application dated 12.04.2023 and the said order does not suffer from
any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the order dated
03.07.2023.
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. At this juncture, before adverting to the merits of the order dated 18.07.2025 in
connected revision petition whereby second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed,
this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the objection by Sri Om Narain Mishra, learned
counsel for accused that the subsequent impugned order dated 18.07.2025 would amount to review
of the first order dated 03.07.2023.

15. Notably, the second application was moved on 27.01.2025 and in a gap of
nearly two years the prosecution had examined five more witnesses before the trial court.
Thus, it is not the case where the evidence relied upon by the complainant in his first
application is again relied upon in his subsequent application, therefore, argument that the
subsequent application could not have been entertained is mis-conceived and is hereby
rejected.

16.During the course of hearing, it is clearly conceded by learned counsel for the
rival parties that the witness-Satish (PW-5) was not cited as a prosecution witness in the
charge sheet dated 30.05.2020, though it contained the list of 21 witnesses, but this
witness-PW-5 was summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed
vide order dated 17.01.2024 which according to the learned counsel for the parties was
upheld by this Court with the dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by
the accused-Jainendra.

17. Now while analyzing the correctness and validity of the order dated 18.07.2025
this Court finds that the only material change after passing of the first order dated
03.07.2023 is the evidence of PW-5-Satish on record of the trial court. Of course, the
reference of this person is contained in the F.I.R. and in the cross-examination of Tejpal,
but that is only to the limited extent that Satish informed him about the death of
complainant's daughter on 08.04.2020. A reading of the statement of PW-5-Satish
(Annexure-17) in Criminal Revision No.5247 of 2025 reveals that this witness has claimed
that when he walked past the house of the victim he heard some noise and entered to see
that the victim was being strangulated by two brothers, but complainant-Tejpal in his
statement nowhere mentioned that Satish had seen the occurrence. Most importantly, the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 collectively does not make out a prima-facie case regarding
involvement of Jitendra in the commission of alleged crime, therefore, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in summoning
Jitendra as an additional accused by accepting the second application dated 27.01.2025.
Thus, the impugned order being against the law on the subject is not sustainable, and the
same is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the complainant on 27.01.2025 under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

18.Resultantly, Criminal Revision No.4292 of 2023 is dismissed and other criminal
revision bearing no.5247 of 2025 filed by Jitendra is allowed. Before parting, it is made
clear that the observations made herein above are only in the context of deciding the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and these shall have no bearing on the merits of the
trial.
----------
3 All. Vikash Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
917
(2026) 3 ILRA 917
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1381 of 2026

Vikash Kumar ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether simultaneous invocation of Sections 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316(2) BNS) renders the
FIR/proceedings erroneous in light of Delhi Race Club judgment?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 221 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - Section 244 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) : - Bail application - seeking bail - in case crime
arising of an FIR - alleged misappropriation of money collected from self-help group members - investigation -
victim statements - confirmed applicant's role - Applicant pleaded false implication, civil nature of dispute and
reliance placed on Delhi Race Club and Prantik Kumar, and parity with co-accused already on bail - Court
found specific allegations against applicant and noted his breach of undertaking to deposit money - court held
that, there is no bar for charging an accused under section 420 IPC (318-(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316-(2) BNS)
where the fact creates doubt which offence is actually committed however, in present case simultaneous
invocation of offence of Cheating and criminal breach of trust is absolutely misconceived - Hence, applicant
not entitled to bail on parity or merits - consequently, bail application rejected.

Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Prantik Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 4297 of 2026)
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2024 SC 4531)
Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 12 SCC 467

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail application, misappropriation, self-help group, cheating, criminal breach of trust, parity, undertaking,
Section 221 Cr.P.C., simultaneous invocation, poor women depositors.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffar Nagar

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Pramod Kumar,