# Man Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1298
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chawan Prakash
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/man-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54008
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal and factual plausibility of the alleged offences to be tried upon relevant sections under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

27. It can further be seen that, by statutory provisions, those responsible for the company's
affairs i.e. Directors, senior functionaries are within the sweep of Section 34 for offences
committed under the Act, and they are wholly and fully responsible for conduct of the business of
the company and mere statement that the Directors of the company have nothing to do with the
business of the company and the day to day working, leads nowhere.

28. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the law, as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, the case of the revisionists is different, and the
facts and grounds raised in the instant revision are mere technicalities, and no glaring mistake or
gross irregularity has been noted in the summoning order. Therefore, the law, as cited by the
revisionists does not help them, in the given circumstances and the cognizance/summoning order
passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this
Court, furthermore, the revisionist will have ample opportunity to redress themselves at the time of
framing of the charge and the stage of charge is yet to come. Thus, there appears to be no illegality
or infirmity in the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate. All Criminal Revisions No.
4884 of 2024, 5442 of 2025, 5443 of 2025 and 5444 of 2025 are devoid of merit and are liable to
be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.

29. A copy of this order be kept in each of the file of the above connected revisions.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1298
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024

Man Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional
accused (in-laws of the deceased) in a dowry death case?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 319 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections - 302, 304-B, 498-A,- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections - 3, 4 - Criminal Revision -
against rejection of application filed by revisionist under Section 319 CrPC - for summoning in-laws of
deceased - FIR - offences under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and 3/4 DP Act - investigation led to chargesheet,
only against husband - statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded - application under Section 319 CrPC moved -
1 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1299
trial court rejected, citing contradictions and lack of sufficient evidence - revision, assailing rejection -
applicant pleaded that in-laws were also involved in dowry demand and harassment - opposite parties argued
they lived separately and no role was found in investigation - Court finds that Section 319 CrPC requires
evidence adduced during trial, not charge-sheet material, and extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly - also observed that, contradictions in witness testimony, IO and doctor's evidence showed only
husband's role - held, no sufficient material to summon in-laws - hence, revision is dismissed being lack of its
merit. (Para - 16, 17, 18)
 Revision Dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Asim Akhtar v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2919
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92
Omi v. State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621
Shiv Baran v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Criminal Revision - Dowry death - additional accused - extraordinary power - prima facie case - trial evidence
- charge sheet - witness contradictions - revision dismissed

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi - FIR lodged by
informant Man Singh regarding death of his daughter Radhika.
.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Dev Raj Singh, Learned AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.)

1. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Sri Dev Raj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi, in S.T. No. 74 of
2020 (State Vs. Manoj Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498A,
302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District
Kaushambi whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been
rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the daughter of the informant namely
Radhika was solemnized with Manoj about five years ago according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and
after marriage, husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law and Dewar Ashok Kumar
started demanding a buffalo and golden ring as additional dowry and harassing his daughter. Manoj
had illicit relations with Sunita, sister-in-law. One month before the incident, Sunita and Manoj
were called by the informant. On 07.01.2020 the husband and other in-laws hanged his daughter
after killing her. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498-A,
304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Pairsa, District
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kaushambi against husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law and brother-in-law
(Dewar) Ashok Kumar and Sunita Devi on the basis of tehrir given by the informant Man Singh.
During investigation, statement of prosecution witnesses and other witnesses were recorded by the
Investigating Officer. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only
against Manoj under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. During
trial, charges were framed against the accused Vinod. Thereafter, after recording statements of PW1 and PW-2, accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were summoned to face trial by the learned trial
court vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision
has been filed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that marriage of the daughter of the
informant namely Radhika was solemnized with Manoj about five years ago of the alleged incident,
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals in which sufficient dowry was given but the husband and
other in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry. After marriage, husband Manoj and his family
members started demanding a buffalo and golden ring as additional dowry and harassing his
daughter. Manoj had illicit relations with his sister-in-law, Sunita. On 07.01.2020 the husband and
other family members killed her daughter. On receiving information, he came there and found that
the dead body of the deceased was lying on the floor. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.
01 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Mohabbatpur Pairsa, District Kaushambi against husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Dewar) Ashok Kumar and Sunita Devi on the basis of tehrir given
by the informant Man Singh. During investigation, statement of informant and other witnesses were
recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they supported the prosecution
version. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against Manoj
under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, statements
of PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh were recorded in which they supported the
prosecution version and stated about the role of opposite party nos. 2 to 4. It is further submitted
that a prima facie case is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 but the learned trial court
rejected the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. It is next submitted that the impugned order is
illegal and has been passed against the settled principles of law and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Asim Akhtar Vs. The State of West Bengal and another passed in Criminal Appeal
No. of 2024 (Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No. 12292 of 2022) decided on 18.10.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 as well as learned A.G.A.
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the learned
trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the said order has
been passed as per the settled principles of law and as per fact of this case. The marriage of the
daughter of the revisionist was solemnized with the son of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 about five
years before the date of incident. The marriage was solemnized in very simple way. No demand of
dowry was made by opposite party nos. 2 to 4 at the time of marriage or after the marriage. The
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are living separately from the family of his son Manoj. The deceased
committed suicide due to some personal reason and the revisionist has falsely implicated the
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in the present case. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of
1 All. Man Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1301
some independent witnesses who clearly stated that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are living
separately from the deceased. The fair investigating was conducted by the Investigating Officer and
he did not find any role of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in the present case and has not filed any charge
sheet against them. During trial, PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh being the relatives of
the deceased has given their evidence but cross-examination they have clearly stated that it was
husband of the deceased who made demand of a buffalo and golden ring. There are major
contradictions in their statements. No prima facie case is made out against the opposite party nos. 2
to 4. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the said application and the revision is liable to be
dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has placed reliance upon a judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Hardeep Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others
2014 0 Supreme(SC)27.

7. As per fact of the case, an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 302
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District
Kaushambi was registered against the accused Manoj (husband), Bhaiya Lal (father-in-law),
mother-in-law and Ashok Kumar (Dewar). During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the informant and other witnesses. He recorded the statements of about 19
persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer found no role of opposite party nos. 2
to 4 and did not file charge sheet against them and charge sheet was filed only against Manoj.

8. During trial, statements of PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh were recorded. An
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the accused opposite party nos. 2 to
4 and the same was rejected by the learned trial court.

9. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order held that we perused the certain
portion of the evidence of PW-1 Man Singh and PW-2 Indresh Singh. PW-1 in his crossexamination dated 21.12.2021 has stated that Manoj had made demand of a buffalo and golden
ring.

10. As per the impugned order, statement of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar was recorded as PW-3 who
stated that cause of death of the deceased was hanging. The Investigating Officer Rajvir Singh as
PW-5 has also stated that Manoj Kumar was living separately with his wife.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Asim Akhtar v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2919 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 17 of the judgement held that complicity of
any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting crossexamination 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. The
revisionist can not get benefit of the said case as the facts of the said case are different from the
present case.

12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. read as under:-
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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 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. Therefore, from Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that trial court is empowered to
summon a person to face trial, who is not the accused in the case on the basis of the evidence. The
word 'evidence' used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. is significant. The Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 held that the
word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. indicates, the word 'evidence' is limited to the
evidence recorded during trial.

14. The Apex Court in case of Omi v. State of M.P., (2025) 2 SCC 621 also held that trial
court can add an individual as accused only on the basis of the 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.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Baran v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457
also held that 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.

16. Therefore, from the above dictum of the Apex Court, it is apparent that while invoking
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court should consider the statements of the witnesses
adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon the material available in the charge-sheet or
the case diary.

17. The law with regard to the summoning of an 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 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more
than prima-facie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient. [See: Constitution Bench judgment of Apex
Court Hardeep Singh (supra)]. Therefore, in light of the above principles, it is to analyze,
1 All. Smt. Mugga Devi & Ors. Vs. Makkhan Singh & Ors.
1303
whether before the trial court material was sufficient to summon the revisionists under Section 319
Cr.P.C. or not.

18. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, impugned
order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track
Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi has been passed by proper reasoning.

19. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1303
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1995 of 2024

Smt Mugga Devi & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Makkhan Singh & Ors. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in computing compensation by deducting family pension from the pension of
the deceased;
(ii) Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation with respect to (a) income based
on pension, (b) future prospects, (c) multiplier, and (d) non-pecuniary heads.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Income - Pension - Deduction of family pension:

Held: Pension received by the deceased at the time of accident is to be taken as the basis for computation of
compensation - Deduction of family pension received by the widow from the pension of the deceased is
impermissible - Family pension has no nexus with compensation under the Act and cannot be treated as
pecuniary advantage - The Tribunal erred in assessing income on the differential amount between pension
and family pension. [Paras 8-10]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Future prospects - Age above 50 years:

Held: In terms of Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, even where the deceased was above 50
years of age, addition of 20% towards future prospects is admissible - The Tribunal erred in not awarding
compensation under this head. [Paras 11, 18]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Multiplier - Age above 65 years:
Held: Where the deceased was above 65 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 5 is applicable in
terms of the Second Schedule of the Act - The compensation is to be computed accordingly. [Paras 15-16]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Deduction towards personal expenses -
Dependants: