# Shubhra Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 870
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2993 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shubhra-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54482
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. The aforesaid view of the Karnataka High Court has been followed and reiterated by
coordinate Benches of this court in Prateek Agarwal (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi
(supra).

23. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the
proviso appended to Section 223, which provides that an accused shall be granted an opportunity of
hearing before the trial court takes cognizance of the offence, applies to complaints filed under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act. While giving an opportunity of hearing to an accused person
under the aforesaid proviso, the learned Special Judge must direct that a copy of the complaint and
the following documents be provided to the accused: -

 (i) Statements recorded by the learned Special Judge of the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance;

 (ii) The documents including the copies of the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA
produced before the Special Court, along with the complaint, and the documents produced
subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance; and

 (iii) Copies of the supplementary complaints and the documents, if any, produced with
supplementary complaints.

24. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2026, passed
by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Court No.3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case
No.5058 of 2025, arising out of ECIR No.ALSZO/06/2020, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, whereby the applications filed by
the petitioners for being supplied copies of documents annexed to the complaint filed by the
Directorate of Enforcement have been rejected, is set aside. The application is allowed and the trial
Court is directed to provide copies of the documents mentioned above to the petitioners. The
parties shall bear their own costs of the case.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 870
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2993 of 2026

Shubhra Tiwari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
4 All. Shubhra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
871
The matter pertains to a murder trial u/s 302 IPC, the trial court allowed the complainant's belated application
u/s 311 CrPC to exhibit existing electronic records (Google search history and Whatsapp Chats) and summon
two additional material witnesses. The accused challenged the order u/s 482 CrPC on grounds of evidentiary
admissibility.
Headnotes
A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 311-Power to summon material witness or examine
person present-Locus standi of private complainant at a belated stage-Electronic documents
and summoning additional material witnesses cannot be dismissed as unmaintainable on the
ground of locus standi, as a filing by the Public Prosecutor is not mandatory precondition for the
exercise of powers u/s 311 Crpc-The provision vests wide suo motu jurisdiction in the Court to
ensure a "just decision" making it immaterial that the essential circumstances were brought to
its notice by the complainant rather than the prosecution-The statute explicitly permits the
exercise of this power "at any stage" , the application cannot be rejected solely for being
belated-Hence, no interference requires.(Para 12 to 17)
Held
The court held that a private complainant has the legal standing to bring essential facts to the court's notice
u/s 311 Crpc and the court can invoke this power at any stage of a trial, even during final arguments, if the
evidence is necessary for a just decision. No legal prejudice is caused to the defense by marking documents
already available on the record as exhibits, as the accused retains a full opportunity to challenge their
admissibility, reliability, and veracity during cross-examination and the subsequent stage of final appreciation
of evidence. (E-6)

Case law Cited
P. Chhagan Lal Vs M. Sanjay Saw: (2003) 11 SCC 486, Rekha Muraka Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (2020) 2
SCC 474, Dhariwal Industries Ltd. Vs Kishore Wadhwain & Ors (2016) 10 SCC 378, Dhariwal Industries Ltd. Vs
Kishore Wadhwain & Ors-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

List of Keywords
Section 311, Locus Standi of Complainant, Victim, Exhibition of evidence, Admissibility, Electronic records,
Section 65-B Certificate, Google search history, Belated application, Stage of Final arguments, Suo Motu
Power of court, Just decision of the case, Prejudicial error, Whatsapp Chat evidence.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 482 No.- 2993 OF 2026 10.04.2026
Shubhra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. Lko. And Another
From the judgment and order dated 10.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Applicant(s)
Vivek Srivastava, Prashant Shukla
Adv. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ganesh Dutt Bhatt,
the learned AGA-I for the State.
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS, the
petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. XIX, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 262/2019 arising out of Case
Crime No. 721/2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow,
whereby an application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165
of the Evidence Act has been allowed.

3. The aforesaid application was filed by the complainant after closure of the prosecution
evidence, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and commencement of submissions,
stating that Google Search History (Document no. P-6), WhatsApp chat (Document no. P-5) and
Media statement of the accused (Document no. P-18) are available on record but the same have
inadvertently been left out from being marked as exhibits and she requested that the documents
may be marked as exhibits. The complainant further stated that PW-1 has made a mention of
accused's sister and the accused has also stated in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that
about 15 days before the incident, the complainant had taken the phone of the accused and there are
WhatsApp chat between the accused and her sister Ruchi Mishra. Therefore, her examination
would be necessary for proper adjudication of the case. A further prayer made in the application
was for examination of a neighbor of the accused Aradhana Mishra, whose name finds place in the
list of witnesses but who has not been examined. She had counseled the accused on many
occasions, as the accused felt troubled by having a daughter and she desired to have a son. Her
testimony is essential for explaining the mental condition of the accused at the time of the incident.

4. The accused-petitioner filed objections against the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
inter alia stating that the documents P-5, P-6 and P-18 have not been proved and, therefore, they are
not admissible in evidence. She alleged that the WhatsApp chat was made by the complainant
herself. In absence of the mobile phone having been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory,
no electronic evidence would be admissible. She stated that the documents have been fabricated by
the complainant herself.

5. The trial Court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 holding
that at the stage of deciding an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to
adjudicate upon the reliability, genuineness or the probative value of the materials sought to be
exhibited and these aspects are to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence. Formal
exhibition of a document does not dispense with the requirement of its proof in accordance with
law. The accused shall have full opportunity to challenge the admissibility and genuineness of the
electronic record during cross examination and at the stage of appreciation of evidence. No
prejudice would be caused to the accused by marking the documents already available on record as
exhibits. The trial Court also noted that the complainant has filed a certificate under Section 65-B
of the Evidence Act supported by an affidavit. Regarding summoning of additional witnesses, the
trial Court stated that at the stage of deciding the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Court
is not required to determine in advance whether the entire testimony of the witnesses would be
admissible or not. If the witness appears to be in a position to depose about the relevant facts, her
examination cannot be refused merely on the ground that some parts of her evidence may
ultimately be held to be hearsay.
4 All. Shubhra Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
873
6. The application was also opposed on the ground that it had been filed belatedly. The trial
Court rejected this objection by relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of P. Chhagan Lal v. M. Sanjay Saw: (2003) 11 SCC 486, wherein it has been held that the
power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage, even after closure of evidence of
both sides, provided the evidence appears to be essential for rendering justice.

7. Assailing validity of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that a complainant has no authority to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a
State case and the trial Court ought to have rejected the application as not maintainable.

8. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision in the case of Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal & Anr.: (2020) 2 SCC 474,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the extent to which the complainant/victim can
provide assistance to the Court and has held as follows:

 "11.1. The use of the term "assist" in the proviso to Section 24(8) is crucial, and implies
that the victim's counsel is only intended to have a secondary role qua the Public Prosecutor. This
is supported by the fact that the original Amendment Bill to CrPC had used the words "coordinate
with the prosecution". However, a change was later proposed and in the finally adopted version,
the words "coordinate with" were substituted by "assist". This change is reflective of an intention to
only assign a supportive role to the victim's counsel, which would also be in consonance with the
limited role envisaged for pleaders instructed by private persons under Section 301(2). In our
considered opinion, a mandate that allows the victim's counsel to make oral arguments and crossexamine witnesses goes beyond a mere assistive role, and constitutes a parallel prosecution
proceeding by itself. Given the primacy accorded to the Public Prosecutor in conducting a trial, as
evident from Sections 225 and 301(2), permitting such a free hand would go against the scheme
envisaged under CrPC

 . * * *

 11.5. However, even if there is a situation where the Public Prosecutor fails to highlight
some issue of importance despite it having been suggested by the victim's counsel, the victim's
counsel may still not be given the unbridled mantle of making oral arguments or examining
witnesses. This is because in such cases, he still has a recourse by channelling his questions or
arguments through the Judge first. For instance, if the victim's counsel finds that the Public
Prosecutor has not examined a witness properly and not incorporated his suggestions either, he
may bring certain questions to the notice of the Court. If the Judge finds merit in them, he may take
action accordingly by invoking his powers under Section 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence
Act, 1872. In this regard, we agree with the observations made by the Tripura High Court in Uma
Saha v. State of Tripura [Uma Saha v. State of Tripura, 2014 SCC OnLine Tri 859] that the
victim's counsel has a limited right of assisting the prosecution, which may extend to suggesting
questions to the Court or the prosecution, but not putting them by himself." (Emphasis added)

9. A perusal of the aforesaid passage makes it clear that although the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the victim has a limited role in providing assistance to the Court, if the victim's
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel finds examination of a witness necessary, he may request the Court for invoking the
powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the present case precisely that has been done by the
complainant. The complainant has requested the Court to invoke the power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. and the Court has accepted the request and has invoked the powers for the reasons recorded
in the impugned order.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors.: (2016) 10
SCC 378. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: -

 "17. We have already explained the distinction between Sections 301 and 302 CrPC. The
role of the informant or the private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a Court of
Session. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of the Public
Prosecutor. As far as Section 302 CrPC is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to
grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Kishore
Wadhwani & Ors. (supra) that the trial Court has the power to grant permission to the
complainant to conduct the prosecution independently.

12. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: -

 "S. 311: Power to summon material witness, or examine person present - Any Court
may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as
a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and
re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and
re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the
case."

13. A bare perusal of Section 311 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that filing of an application by
the Public Prosecutor is not a precondition for exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The
Court can exercise power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if it has reasons to believe that the
circumstances for exercise of powers exist. It cannot be said that the reasons cannot be brought to
the notice of the Court by the complainant. The Section by no means can be interpreted to means
that the Court can exercise this powers only suo moto. Moreover, if the Court has power to act suo
moto, the power can be exercised if the Court is of the view that the circumstances warranting
exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. exist. It is immaterial that the circumstances have
been brought to the notice of the Court by the complainant or by any other person.

14. Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused ?
applicant that the complainant had no locus standi to file the application and I hold that the
application filed by the complainant could not be dismissed as not maintainable.

15. No other submission was advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4 All. Lavkush Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
875
16. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has passed the impugned
order after a proper analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of
sound reasons. Inherent powers of this Court acknowledged by Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to be
exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The
filing and allowing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be an abuse of
the process of law and there is no error or illegality in the impugned order which may be causing
injustice to the petitioner.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the cnsidered view that there is no good
ground to entertain the petition. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 875
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3598 of 2024

Lavkush Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh ....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
The police arrested four individuals, including applicant, and seized playing cards and currency for alleged
gambling. Without a Magistrate's permission the police investigated this non-cognizable offence, filed a
charge-sheet and the lower court subsequently issued a summoning order. The applicants approached the
High Court to quash the entire criminal proceedings.

Headnotes
A. Criminal Procedure code,1973-Section 482-Public Gambling Act,1867-Section 13-Quashing of
proceedings-Offence carries a maximum punishment of six months, making it strictly a noncognizable offence under Part II of the First Schedule of CrPC-Statutory bar on police-No police
officer can investigate a non-cognizable case or file a charge-sheet without the express prior
order of a competent Magistrate-Criminal proceedings initiated in absolute disregard of
mandatory procedural safeguards constitute an abuse of process-Fit case for quashing under
Bhajan Lal Guidelines.(Para 8 to 18)
Held
The court held that Section 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1867 is a non-cognizable offence. The police had no
authority to investigate the matter or file a charge-sheet without a Magistrate's permission. The Magistrate's
cognizance order on an illegal report was a grave error, and the entire criminal proceedings are quashed to
prevent the abuse of process of law. (E-6)

Case law Cited
State of Haryana & Ors Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors (1992) SCC (Cri) 426- referred to.

List of Acts