# Lalit Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 827
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalit-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-45735
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law- Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Sections 397/401 &
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 316-
rejection-causing
miscarriage
to
victim-meticulous
analysis

or
requirement of medical evidence is
not required at the time of framing of
charges-framing
of
charges
for
offence
punishable
under
various
section of IPC, for which cognizance is
taken, only ingredients are requiredno illegality in the order passed by
revisional
court-Hence,
dismissed.(Para 6)
Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

2 All. Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
827
after collecting the report from the police
station concerned or the report otherwise
the Magistrate was of the view that no
prima facie case was made out. Thus, the
application has rightly been rejected by the
court below under the order impugned.

18. In light of above facts, this Court
is of the view that no interference is
required in the order impugned. The
present criminal revision lacks merit and
deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A827

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Criminal Revision No. 166 of 2020

Lalit ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Raghuraj Kishore

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

A. Criminal Law- Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Sections 397/401 &
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 316-
rejection-causing
miscarriage
to
victim-meticulous
analysis

or
requirement of medical evidence is
not required at the time of framing of
charges-framing
of
charges
for
offence
punishable
under
various
section of IPC, for which cognizance is
taken, only ingredients are requiredno illegality in the order passed by
revisional
court-Hence,
dismissed.(Para 6)
Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors.
(2008) 14 SCC 504

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Present Revision, under Sections
397/401
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has
been filed by the revisionist, Lalit,
assailing order, dated 14.11.2019, passed
by the Sessions Judge, Baghpat, with this
contention that the Revisional court failed
to appreciate facts and law placed before it
and passed impugned order, under failure
of exercise of appropriate jurisdiction and
the order, being apparently erroneous on
the face of record, deserves to be set aside.

2. Learned counsel for revisionist
argued that there is no evidence for
offence, punishable, under Section 316 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, (In short 'IPC'),
whereas, occurrence was said to have
occurred at the parental house of the
informant and mother of the victim and it
was said to be the month of November,
whereas, medical report of hospital reveals
that it was a case of June, 2017, i.e., not
corroborating with the accusation levelled
by the informant and her daughter-victim.
Hence, it was asked specifically that is
there any medical document or reference
regarding miscarriage and it was answered
that no such medical document is there.
Hence, above conclusion of trial court was
apparently against fact on record. Hence,
this revision with above prayer.

3. From very perusal of the impugned
order, dated 14.11.2019, it is apparent that
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an Application, bearing no. 5B, was
moved by the accused/revisionist,
Lalit,
on
31.10.2019,
with
this
contention that chargesheet contained
Section 316 of IPC, but, there is no
evidence regarding above offence,
hence, charge for above offence, be not
levelled
against
accused-applicant.
This was objected by learned Public
Prosecutor and revisional court, vide
impugned order, dismissed above
Application 5B and this Criminal
Revision is against above order.

4. First information report was got
lodged by Smt. Bhagwani on 22.1.2018 with
this contention that her daughter, Manisha, was
married with accused-revisionist, Lalit, on
1.2.2017, wherein, dowry was given as per
capacity,
but,
after
marriage,
in-laws
demanded cash of Rs. One Lakh, with a
Motorcycle in dowry, and with regard to this
demand she was subjected to cruelty. Manisha,
victim, received conception, but, owing to
assault made by the accused-applicant, Lalit,
she faced miscarriage. Accused persons took
entire belongings of Manisha, victim, and they
ousted her from her nuptial house on
12.12.2017. In the absence of informant, at the
victim's parental house, accused persons gave
assault to victim and attempted to throttle her,
extended threat and abused her. In this case
crime number, during investigation, statements
of informant and victim were recorded, under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Victim was examined,
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also. In her
statement, recorded, as above, she had
reiterated contention of accused, though
alleged assault was said to have been made by
her husband. Hence, other in-laws were not
charge-sheeted and revisionist, Lalit, was
chargesheeted, wherein, a proceeding, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed and this Court
stayed proceeding against other accused
persons, but, for revisionist, Lalit, no relief was
granted, hence,
trial
proceeded
against
revisionist, Lalit, wherein, this application was
moved, with above prayer, but, the Revisional
court rejected said application on the ground
that offence, punishable, under Section 316 of
IPC was in existence, hence, charge was to be
framed.

5. As per law laid down by the Apex
Court, as well as by this Court, preferable, in
the case of Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder
Singh and others, reported in (2008) 14
SCC 504, it has been held by the Apex Court
that pre trial acquittal may not be given and for
framing of charge, a meticulous analysis of
evidence is not required. At this stage, even on
the strong suspicion, charges can be framed.

6. In present case, this Court had
given no relief to accused, revisionistLalit, and at this stage, charge for
offence, punishable, under Section 316
is there. Once relief was rejected,
thenafter, trial proceeded and Sessions
Judge, on the basis of statements,
recorded, under Sections 161 and 164
of Cr.P.C., concluded that framing of
charge for offence, punishable, under
various Sections of IPC, for which
cognizance
was
taken,
alongwith
Section
316
of
IPC,
ingredients
required are there. It was an order on
the basis of evidences on record.
Meticulous analysis or requirement of
medical
evidence
or
support
by
medical evidence is not to be analysed
at that juncture of framing of charges.
These all are to be seen at the time of
judicial decision making.

7. Hence, in view of what has been
discussed, hereinabove, admittedly, there
is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order, passed by the Revisional
2 All. Dipendra Kumar Singh @ Bittu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
829
Court. Thus, this Criminal Revision, being
devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and it
stands dismissed as such.
----------
(2020)02ILR A829

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV,
J.

Criminal Revision No. 1101 of 2019

Dipendra Kumar Singh @ Bittu
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Surendra Pratap Singh, Ajai Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Adv.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections
397/401,319
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 147, 148,
149, 504,506, 307, 302- challenge tosummoning of proposed accused for trial u/s
319 Cr.P.C.-examination-in-chief is sufficient
if it satisfactorily proves the presence and
role of accused in the crime-complainant
himself got examined on oath as PW-1 and
his statement is in support of contents of the
FIR-revisionist actively participated in the
commission of crime by firing gun shot upon
the
deceased
persons-trial
judge
has
committed no error of law to summon the
revisionist for trial along with other coaccused-Hence, dismissed.(Para 4 to 32)

B. Criminal Law-Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. can be
exercised by Court against a person in FIR r
no chargesheet is filed by Police against him
and the accused can be summoned only on
the basis of examination-in-chief of witness
and need not wait for cross-examination etc.
the degree of satisfaction that will be
required for summoning a person would be
the same as for framing a charge.(Para 29, 30)

C. A person not named in the FIR or a person
though named in the FIR but has not been
chargesheeted or a person who has been
discharged can be summoned under section
319 Cr.P.C., provided from the evidence it
appears that such person can be tried along
with the accused already facing
trial.
However, in so far as an accused who has
been
discharged
is
concerned
the
requirement of Section 300(5) and 398
Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can
be summoned afresh.(Para 29)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Sunil Kumar Gupta & Ors.Vs. St. Of U.P. &
Ors., (2019) 2 JIC 64 SC

2. Khushbu Gupta Vs. St. Of U.P. & Ors. (2019)
2 JIC 64 SC

3. Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. Vs. St. Of Guj.
& Anr.,SLP (Crl.) No. 6392 of 2018

4. Hardeep Singh Vs. St. Of Punjab &
Ors.,(2014) 1 JIC 539 (SC)

5. Raja Ram@ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. St. Of U.P.
& Anr., (2019) 2 JIC 139 (All)

6. Rajol & Ors. Vs. St. Of U.P.& Anr., (2010) 2
JIC 920 (All)

7. Brijendra Singh Vs. St. Of Rajasthan, AIR
(2017) SC 2839

8. Sugreev Kumar Vs. St. Of Punjab

9. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram
Kishan Rohatgi & Ors.,AIR (1983) SC 67

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. The present revision is moved to
seek interference of court in the impugned