# Santosh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 953
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 710 of 2026
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54342
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
953

(6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two
or more Judges."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, is an ex-parte order granting Rs. 30,000/- per month maintenance to
the wife, which has been passed after due service of notice upon the revisionist.

10. This Court further finds that a specific statutory remedy is available under Section 145(2)
of the B.N.S.S. for setting aside such ex-parte order before the trial court itself by showing
sufficient cause and seeking an opportunity to contest the case on merits. However, in the present
case, instead of availing the aforesaid statutory remedy, the revisionist has directly approached this
Court by way of the present revision, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not in
consonance with the provisions of Section 145(2) of the B.N.S.S. Therefore, the revisionist is
directed to approach the concerned family court and move an application under Section 145(2)
B.N.S.S. for recalling the order dated 20.08.2025.

11. In case there is any delay in approaching the trial court, it shall be open to the revisionist to
move an appropriate application for condonation of delay along with affidavit, if so permissible
under law, and the same shall be considered by the concerned court in accordance with law.

12. In view of the availability of such efficacious alternative remedy, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at this
stage.

13. With the aforesaid directions, this revision is dismissed on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy.

14. It is open to the revisionist to approach the concerned family court in accordance with law,
if so advised, to avail the aforesaid remedy.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 953
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision No. 710 of 2026

Santosh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) Whether an accused facing trial can invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning persons named in the F.I.R.
but found innocent during investigation, on the basis of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the
testimony of defence witnesses?
(ii) Whether evidence already considered and discarded in an earlier connected trial can constitute the
requisite material for exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?
(iii) Whether the trial court committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
seeking summoning of additional accused?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Extraordinary
power - Scope and exercise of jurisdiction.

HELD: The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised only where the
evidence adduced during trial strongly indicates involvement of a person, not already facing trial, in the
commission of the offence. Mere existence of suspicion or reliance upon material which does not disclose a
strong prima facie case is insufficient for invoking the provision. The jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
cannot be exercised routinely and requires satisfaction based upon cogent evidence emerging during trial.
[Para 3]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Persons
named in F.I.R. but exonerated during investigation - Reliance upon statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and defence evidence - Maintainability of application.

HELD: Where persons named in the F.I.R. were found innocent during investigation and the accused sought
their summoning as additional accused solely on the basis of his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and the testimony of defence witnesses, such material by itself did not furnish a sufficient foundation for
exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Particularly when the same material had already been available
on record and formed part of the evidence considered in the connected trial, no fresh evidence emerged
during trial warranting summoning of the proposed accused. [Paras 2 and 3]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 319 - Additional accused - Evidence already considered
in connected trial - Effect.

HELD: The prosecution and defence evidence relied upon by the revisionist had already been examined in the
connected sessions trial arising out of the same occurrence. Once the trial court had discarded the explanation
of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the version of the defence witnesses while deciding the
connected trial, it could not be said that such material had emerged for the first time before the court so as to
justify invocation of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The absence of any new incriminating material against
the proposed accused constituted a valid ground for rejection of the application. [Para 3]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 397/401 - Revision - Order rejecting application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Interference by High Court.

HELD: Where the trial court had carefully examined the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the material
available on record and recorded reasons for rejecting the prayer for summoning additional accused, no
interference in revisional jurisdiction was warranted in the absence of any illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order. [Paras 3 and 4]

Revision dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
-None-

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
3 All. Santosh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

List of Keywords
Additional accused; Summoning of accused; Extraordinary power; Defence evidence; Persons exonerated
during investigation; Revisional jurisdiction; Connected trial; Fresh evidence; Prima facie case; Criminal
revision.

Case Arising From
Order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Sessions
Trial No. 333 of 2007, State v. Santosh, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2006, Police Station Vijaygarh,
District Aligarh

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ashish Srivastava
For the Respondents: Sri Girish Chandra and Sri Gyan Prakash Dwivedi; learned G.A.

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

1. Petitioner-Accused has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated
11.12.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial
No. 333 of 2017, titled State Vs. Santosh, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2006, under Sections
149, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaygarh, District Aligarh, whereby his application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely, Vipin, Pramod and Kailash
Chandra as additional accused has been dismissed.

2. When the case is called, no one has appeared on behalf of accused-petitioner.

3. A perusal of the case file would show that the above noticed F.I.R. was registered on the
basis of a written complaint given by Lakhan Singh s/o Faguniram, wherein it is alleged that his
minor daughter aged about 16 years had gone to answer the call of nature on 26.4.2006 at around
9:00 p.m. in the fields of Thakur Tejpal Singh. Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Lal Singh had also gone to a
nearby place for the same purpose, who heard cries of complainant's daughter and saw with the
torch light that Vipin Kumar s/o Chandra Prakash Gupta, Pramod Kumar s/o Gajendra Singh and
Kailash Chandra s/o Girraj Prakash Gupta had gripped complainant's daughter, and were doing
wrong act with her. On hearing the noise of Sunita, Lal Singh s/o Banshidhar, Nihal Singh s/o
Banwarilal, Ramesh Chandra s/o Faguniram, Vikas Kumar s/o Nempal Singh and others arrived at
the spot and found complainant's daughter dead and naked with torn clothes. Vipin Kumar, Pramod
Kumar, Kailash Chandra were seen escaping from the place of occurrence and the villagers tried to
apprehend them, but they all pushed the villagers and managed to run away.

4. The complainant alleged that all the three accused persons had committed wrong act with
his daughter and murdered her. The complainant left the dead body at the place of occurrence and
came to the police station for lodging the report and requested for necessary legal action.
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Broadly, on these allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons
namely, Vipin Kumar, Pramod Kumar and Kailash Chandra for the alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/St Act.

6. After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted, which was later on entrusted
to the Deputy Superintendent of Police - Ramesh Chandra Gupta, who found all the three accused
persons named in the F.I.R. as innocent and sent Lakhan, Ramesh Nihal @ Nehna, Santosh and
Kalu to face trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. The
charges against the accused persons were framed on 19.7.2007 and 7.9.2007, who pleaded not
guilty and thereafter, the prosecution adduced its evidence.

7. Notably, the petitioner disengaged himself with the proceedings whereas in respect of the
rest of four accused persons, the trial bearing Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2007 concluded through
judgment of conviction dated 25.5.2019 and all the four convicts were awarded a sentence of ten
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each . In the event of non payment of fine, it
was directed that the convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a month.

8. Further, a perusal of the case file would show that trial of petitioner bearing Sessions Trial
No. 333 of 2007 had got separated and is pending. During the pendency of the trial, accused
Santosh moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party nos.2 to 4
namely, Vipin, Pramod and Kailash Chandra as additional accused on the ground that the statement
of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly narrates about the involvement of these
persons for commission of crime. Further, the reliance is placed upon the defence witness i.e.
Sunita (D.W.-1), Lal Singh (D.W.-2) and Lakhan Singh (D.W.-3) to seek summoning of the
additional accused as all these defence witnesses had deposd about the involvement of opposite
party nos. 2 to 4. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2025.

9. Upon considering the material on record, particularly the ground raised in the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court finds that the accused has relied upon the initial version of
the F.I.R., wherein Vipin Kumar, Pramod and Kailash Chandra were named as accused by Lakhan
Singh, but after completion of investigation, the complainant - Lakhan Singh himself was
implicated as an accused in the case alongwith others, whereas the named accused persons were
found innocent. The evidence relied upon the prosecution as well as the defence in both the trial is
common and once the explanation of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the version
of defence witnesses has been discarded by the trial court in its judgment dated 25.9.2025,
therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence and material relied upon by accused Santosh has
emerged before the trial court for the first time. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and the same is to be
exercised only in cases where the evidence adduced during trial strongly suggests involvement of
other person(s) in commission of alleged crime, who were not before the trial court.

10. The facts and circumstances of the case would show that the material relied upon by
accused-petitioner does not even prima facie make out a case for exercise of powers under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
3 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
957

11. Upon examining the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, this Court finds that the trial court
has carefully analyzed the application by accused-petitioner and other material on record while
rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 does not
suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

12. The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 957
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision Defective No. 2152 of 2025

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

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be
permitted to be compounded at the revisional stage after affirmation of conviction by the appellate court?
(ii) Whether subsequent compromise between the complainant and the accused, coupled with full satisfaction
of the agreed amount and consent of the complainant, warrants setting aside of the conviction and sentence
recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(iii) Whether the nature and object of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justify
acceptance of compromise after conviction?

Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of
offence - Compromise entered into after dismissal of appeal and during pendency of revision -
Complainant receiving agreed amount and consenting to compounding - Effect.

HELD: Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 declares every offence punishable under the Act
to be compoundable. Where during pendency of the revision proceedings the parties amicably settled the
dispute, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the agreed amount and expressly consented to
compounding of the offence, there remained no impediment to permit compounding. The subsequent
settlement fully redressed the grievance of the complainant arising out of non-payment of the cheque amount
and justified acceptance of the compromise. [Paras 3 to 7]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 147 - Compounding of offence - Stage at
which permissible - Post-conviction stage - Appeal and revision.

HELD: It is well settled that permission to compound an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act may
be granted at any stage of the proceedings, including after conviction and during pendency of appeal or
revision, provided the complainant consents and there exists no legal impediment to such compounding. The