# Ramnarayan Ram Daroga & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1181
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6391 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramnarayan-ram-daroga-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53874
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Determination of the scope of 'Evidence'
mentioned under Section 319 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Whether this term
includes
the
materials
contained
in
the
chargesheet or the case diary? Whether the
power to summon an additional accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in routine
manner?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
156(3) - application to a Magistrate to
order the police to register an FIR and
investigate - s. 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence - scope of evidence -
limited to trial - exclusion of materials
contained in chargesheet or case diary -
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether more than prima facie case is
made out or not - instant revision allowed
Held:
Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code -
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 -
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 Apex Court in
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others;
Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another; and Brijendra Singh &
Others Vs. State of Rajasthan held 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. [Para 18-23]
For summoning of an accused under Section
319 Cr.P.C. - power is an extraordinary power,
be used sparingly with circumspection and court
must consider whether more than prima facie
case is made out, or not. It is to analyze,
whether before the trial court material was
sufficient to summon the revisionists under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not. The impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 does not reflect that the trial
court recorded any finding, whether more than
prima-facie case is made out or not against the
revisionists as well as there was an inordinate
delay of three months in lodging the FIR and
the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
recorded before the trial court do not appear to
be of such quality. [Paras 24, 26, and 27]
Therefore,
the
impugned
order
dated
30.10.2023 is illegal and hereby set aside.
Instant revision stands allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC 27 and
Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.3008
of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No.3993 of 2025 - referred to; Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2014)
3 SCC 92 - applied.
Lists of Acts/Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; inordinate delay in FIR;
summon under s, 319 CrPC; scope of s.
319 Cr.P.C.; evidence adduced in trial;
more than prima facie case is to be made
out; illegal and hereby set aside.
Case Arising From
Criminal Case No. 1697 of 2011 instituted in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli
arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2011. The
aforesaid court has summoned the revisionist
vide order dated 30.10.2023 under s. 319 CrPC.
The said impunged order dated 30.10.2023 is
challenged by way of this revision.
Appearance of Parties
Counsel for Revisionist: Byas Kumar Prasad,
Suresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party: Balbir Singh, G.A.;
Sukhendu Pal Singh

## Text

9 All. Ramnarayan Ram Daroga & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1181
applied is one which is more than prima
facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction
to an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the
absence of such satisfaction, the court
should refrain from exercising power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

26.
On
the
basis
of
aforesaid
discussion, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order is
sustainable. The evidence on record which
was recorded before the trial court
definitely makes out a prima facie case
against the proposed accused persons
which is more than a prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge
but less than such a satisfaction that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. From the entire testimony of
PW-2 prima facie it appears that the
accused persons / revisionists also have
played an active role in commission of the
crime and the Court concerned committed
no mistake to summon them to face trial for
the offence under Sections 147, 302, 201
IPC.

27. In view of the above discussion, in
my view, there is no infirmity, illegality,
perversity or lack of judicial mind in the
impugned order dated 28.5.2025 and the
said order is liable to be affirmed and the
criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

28.
The
criminal
revision
is
accordingly dismissed. The impugned
order order dated 28.5.2025 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.T. No.
960 of 2022 (State Vs. Sunil Tiwari and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of
2022 under sections 147, 302, 201 IPC,
Police Station Punchha, District Jhansi is
affirmed.

29. Copy of this order be sent to the
court
concerned
for
compliance
and
necessary action.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1181
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6391 of 2023

Ramnarayan Ram Daroga & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Byas Kumar Prasad, Suresh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Balbir Singh, G.A., Sukhendu Pal Singh

Issue for Consideration
Determination of the scope of 'Evidence'
mentioned under Section 319 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Whether this term
includes
the
materials
contained
in
the
chargesheet or the case diary? Whether the
power to summon an additional accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in routine
manner?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
156(3) - application to a Magistrate to
order the police to register an FIR and
investigate - s. 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence - scope of evidence -
limited to trial - exclusion of materials
contained in chargesheet or case diary -
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether more than prima facie case is
made out or not - instant revision allowed
Held:
Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code -
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 -
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 Apex Court in
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others;
Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another; and Brijendra Singh &
Others Vs. State of Rajasthan held 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. [Para 18-23]
For summoning of an accused under Section
319 Cr.P.C. - power is an extraordinary power,
be used sparingly with circumspection and court
must consider whether more than prima facie
case is made out, or not. It is to analyze,
whether before the trial court material was
sufficient to summon the revisionists under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not. The impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 does not reflect that the trial
court recorded any finding, whether more than
prima-facie case is made out or not against the
revisionists as well as there was an inordinate
delay of three months in lodging the FIR and
the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
recorded before the trial court do not appear to
be of such quality. [Paras 24, 26, and 27]
Therefore,
the
impugned
order
dated
30.10.2023 is illegal and hereby set aside.
Instant revision stands allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC 27 and
Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.3008
of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No.3993 of 2025 - referred to; Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (2014)
3 SCC 92 - applied.
Lists of Acts/Statutes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; inordinate delay in FIR;
summon under s, 319 CrPC; scope of s.
319 Cr.P.C.; evidence adduced in trial;
more than prima facie case is to be made
out; illegal and hereby set aside.
Case Arising From
Criminal Case No. 1697 of 2011 instituted in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli
arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2011. The
aforesaid court has summoned the revisionist
vide order dated 30.10.2023 under s. 319 CrPC.
The said impunged order dated 30.10.2023 is
challenged by way of this revision.
Appearance of Parties
Counsel for Revisionist: Byas Kumar Prasad,
Suresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party: Balbir Singh, G.A.;
Sukhendu Pal Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Byas Kumar Prasad,
learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri
Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent and Sri Sukhendu Pal
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2.

2. The instant criminal revision has
been filed by the revisionists to set-aside
the impugned order dated 30.10.2023
9 All. Ramnarayan Ram Daroga & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1183
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandauli in Criminal Case No.1697 of
2011 (State vs. Mithai Lal) arising out of
Case Crime No.48 of 2011 by which they
have been summoned to face trial under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427
I.P.C., Police Station Mughal Sarai, District
Chandauli.

Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged
on 12.02.2011 against revisionists and six
others with regard to the incident dated
12.11.2010 for offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 395,
452, 427, 341, 342 I.P.C. through an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
dated 08.12.2010 and according to the FIR,
revisionists and six others made assault and
due to the assault made by them, wife of
the opposite party no.2 and his two sons
sustained injuries.

4. After registration of the FIR,
investigation was conducted and during
investigation
involvement
of
the
revisionists were found false and chargesheet has not been filed against them but
during trial, on the basis of the statements
of P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3, revisionists have been summoned
by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023.
Hence, the instant revision.

Argument advanced on behalf of the
revisionists:-

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submits
that
impugned
order
dated
30.10.2023 passed by the trial court is illegal
as while summoning the revisionists under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court did not record
any finding that more than prima-facie case is
made out against the revisionists, which was
necessary to summon them under Section
319 Cr.P.C.

6. He further submits that even it
reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged
after two months through an application
moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and even
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was
moved after about one month. He next
submits, even P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2),
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 in their statements
recorded before the trial court stated that
incident occurred on 12.11.2010 but while
passing the impugned order, court concerned
did not consider this fact and in routine
manner summoned the revisionists under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. He next submits that however an
additional accused can be summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the
evidence laid before the trial court but before
summoning him, it is the duty of the trial
court to consider the other relevant factors
including the material available on record
collected by the I.O. during investigation.

8. He next submits that however power
to summon an additional accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power
but the same cannot be exercised in routine
manner and this power should be exercised
sparingly only in appropriate cases, where
there is strong evidence to summon such
accused .

9. He further submits that in the present
matter even from the statements of the
witnesses recorded before the trial court, it
reflects, they very casually disclosed the
name of the revisionists and their testimonies
were not of such quality on the basis of which
revisionists should be summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. He next submits that therefore,
impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed
by the court concerned is illegal and is
liable to be set aside.

Argument advanced on behalf of the
State and Opposite Party No.2:-

11. Per contra; learned A.G.A. as well
as learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and
submit that from the statements of P.W.-1
(opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
recorded before the trial court, it is
apparent that they specifically disclosed the
name of the revisionists and from their
statements, it is also apparent that more
than prima-facie case is made out against
them and therefore, while summoning them
under Section 319 Cr.P.C . court concerned
did not commit any illegality.

12. They further submit that law is
settled that while summoning an accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., trial court
should consider only the statements of the
witnesses recorded before it and trial court
cannot consider the material/statements
collected/recorded by the I.O. during
investigation.

13. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 placed reliance on the judgments
of the Apex Court passed in the case of
Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC
27 and Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another decided on 16th
July, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.3008 of
2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No.3993 of 2025.

14. He further submits that P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 are injured witnesses and therefore,
their statements recorded before the trial
court cannot be disbelieved and as they
categorically
stated
that
revisionists
participated in the incident, therefore, trial
court
rightly
summoned
them under
Section 319 Cr.P.C..

15. He further submits that therefore
instant revision is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

Analysis and conclusion:-

16. I have heard both the parties and
perused the record of the case.

17. In the instant revision, revisionists
challenged the order dated 30.10.2023
passed by the trial court by which they
have been summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C.

18. Section 319 Cr.P.C. read 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
9 All. Ramnarayan Ram Daroga & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1185
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."

19. 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. Th 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.

20. The Apex Court in case of Omi @
Omkar Rathore (supra) 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.

21. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv
Baran (supra) 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.

22. The Apex Court in case of
Brijendra Singh & Others Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, observed
that however, the word 'evidence' used in
Section 319 Cr.P.C. means, the material
brought before the court during trial but
evidence collected by the I. O. can be
utilized for corroboration.

23. 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.

24. 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 primafacie
case
is
not
sufficient.
[See:
Constitution Bench judgment of Apex
Court Hardeep Singh (surpa)]. Therefore,
in light of the above principles, it is to
analyze, whether before the trial court
material was sufficient to summon the
revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or
not.

25. From the impugned order dated
30.10.2023 passed by the trial court it
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reflects before it statements of P.W.-1
(opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
have been recorded and P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
are the injured witnesses of the case and
these witnesses stated that on 12.11.2010,
revisionists along with others made assault
due to which, three persons sustained
injuries including Bahadur Sonkar (P.W.-2)
and Lilly Sonkar (P.W.-3) but it reflects
that FIR of the present case was lodged on
12.02.2011 i.e. after three months through
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and even application under 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved on 8.12.2010 i.e. after one
month, therefore, there is inordinate delay
in lodging the FIR of the present case. It
reflects while summoning the revisionists
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court concerned
did not consider this fact.

26. Further, from the impugned order
dated 30.10.2023, it could not be reflected
that trial court recorded any finding,
whether more than prima-facie case is
made out or not against the revisionists,
which was necessary in the light of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh
(supra).

27. Further, after considering the fact
that there is inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR, the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 recorded before the trial court do
not appear to be of such quality on the basis
of which, revisionists should be summoned
by exercising power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. as from their statements, it could
not be reflected that more than prima-facie
case is made out against them.

28. It reflects from the impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 that without properly
analyzing the facts and circumstances of
the case, trial court blindly accepted the
statements of P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2),
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and summoned the
revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
which was not permissible.

29. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, in considered view of this
Court, impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is
illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

30. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 30.10.2023 is hereby set aside.
Instant revision stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1186
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Government Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2025

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ajeet S/o Omveer ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Patanjali Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the trial court's acquittal of accused
Ajeet in Sessions Trial arising out of case crime
under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4
POCSO Act was justified, and if the High Court
should grant leave to appeal against the
acquittal.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 173(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, -
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual