# Vijay Shankar Verma Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-shankar-verma-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51864
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A.,
Sri
Shesh
Narain
Mishra,
Sri
Sudhanshu Pratap Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161, 319 - Against
rejection of Application for summoning
opposite party - Revisionist's sister died
due to dowry harassment, for which her
father lodged FIR against her husband,
mother-in-law, and opposite parties nos.2
to 4 - Investigating Officer illegally,
expunged names of opposite parties nos.2
to 4 and filed charge-sheet only against
husband and mother-in-law - During trial,
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 deposed regarding
involvement of opposite parties nos.2 to 4
in commission of murder of revisionist's
sister - Consequently, application u/s 319
Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist's father, trial
court
rejected
-
Opposite
parties
contended they were named in FIR only
due to relation with deceased's husband,
no specific role assigned against them,
finding no evidence, Investigating Officer
rightly exonerated them - Held, trial court,
relied
on
St.ments,
of
independent
witnesses - P.W.1 (father) and P.W.2
(uncle)
of
deceased
were
not
eyewitnesses - P.W.-1 didn't visit place of
occurrence, visited hospital after incident,
where her daughter was undergoing
treatment for her burn injuries, died
thereafter - P.W.2 received information of
burning and death of deceased from P.W.1
- P.W.1 and P.W.2 had neither earlier
complained of harassment of deceased by
in-laws or opposite parties nos.2 - 4, nor
did they assign any specific role to them -
On these grounds, trial court rejected
application - Incident occurred over seven
years
after
marriage
of
deceased
-
St.ments recorded indicate that opposite
parties nos.2 - 4 were not present at place
of occurrence, only deceased's husband
and mother-in-law present - Witnesses
St.d that deceased, depressed over not
having a son, had quarrel with her
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mother-in-law, who scolded her, after
which she self-immolated using kerosene
oil - Thus, no illegality in impugned order,
revision dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 16, 17)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Vijay Shankar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
impugned
order,
the
Magistrate
has
committed illegality and has not exercised
the
jurisdiction
vested
in
him,
in
accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), FTC, Basti in Criminal
Misc.
Application
No.462/2012/2022
(Vishwanath vs. Shivnath) is set aside.

17. The Magistrate concerned shall
pass a fresh order on the application of the
revisionist filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. after giving opportunity of hearing
to the revisionist/applicant.

18. However, it is hereby made clear
that while making aforesaid observations,
this Court is merely concerned with the
illegality of impugned order and no
observation or finding has been made on
merit of the case.

19. The Magistrate shall disposed of
the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. without being influenced by any
observation made in this order except that
relating to non-applicability of Section
195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. to the facts of the
case.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 879
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2023

Vijay Shankar Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.,
Sri
Shesh
Narain
Mishra,
Sri
Sudhanshu Pratap Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161, 319 - Against
rejection of Application for summoning
opposite party - Revisionist's sister died
due to dowry harassment, for which her
father lodged FIR against her husband,
mother-in-law, and opposite parties nos.2
to 4 - Investigating Officer illegally,
expunged names of opposite parties nos.2
to 4 and filed charge-sheet only against
husband and mother-in-law - During trial,
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 deposed regarding
involvement of opposite parties nos.2 to 4
in commission of murder of revisionist's
sister - Consequently, application u/s 319
Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist's father, trial
court
rejected
-
Opposite
parties
contended they were named in FIR only
due to relation with deceased's husband,
no specific role assigned against them,
finding no evidence, Investigating Officer
rightly exonerated them - Held, trial court,
relied
on
St.ments,
of
independent
witnesses - P.W.1 (father) and P.W.2
(uncle)
of
deceased
were
not
eyewitnesses - P.W.-1 didn't visit place of
occurrence, visited hospital after incident,
where her daughter was undergoing
treatment for her burn injuries, died
thereafter - P.W.2 received information of
burning and death of deceased from P.W.1
- P.W.1 and P.W.2 had neither earlier
complained of harassment of deceased by
in-laws or opposite parties nos.2 - 4, nor
did they assign any specific role to them -
On these grounds, trial court rejected
application - Incident occurred over seven
years
after
marriage
of
deceased
-
St.ments recorded indicate that opposite
parties nos.2 - 4 were not present at place
of occurrence, only deceased's husband
and mother-in-law present - Witnesses
St.d that deceased, depressed over not
having a son, had quarrel with her
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mother-in-law, who scolded her, after
which she self-immolated using kerosene
oil - Thus, no illegality in impugned order,
revision dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 16, 17)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.,
(2012) 9 SCC 460, (Paras 12, 13, 20)

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj.; (2014) 3 SCC
92, (Paras 105, 106, 117.3 to 117.5)

3.
S. Mohammad
Ispahani
Vs
Yogendra
Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226, (Para 35)

4. Rajesh Vs St. of Har. (2019) 6 SCC 368

5. Yashodhan Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.;
(2023) 9 SCC 108, (Paras 22.6 to 22.8)

6. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs The St. of
Bihar & ors., 2022(6) SCC 5991

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

1. By means of instant revision filed
under
Section
397/401
Cr.P.C.,
the
revisionist has assailed the impugned order
dated
11.5.2022
passed
by
the
Ist
Additional Sessions Judge Basti in Sessions
Trial No. 35 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Suresh
and others)) under Section 306 IPC P.S.
Paikoliya, District Basti. By the impugned
order, the trial court has rejected the
revisionist's application 52 (Kha) filed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning
the opposite party no.2 to 4 as an accused
for trial.

2. It is has been averred by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the trial
court has passed the impugned order
against the weight of evidence on record
and the without application of judicial
mind, the order is illegal, improper and bad
in the eye of law and it is liable to be
quashed by this Court.

3. It has been submitted that the
revisionist's
sister
Chandrakanti
was
subjected to dowry death for which,
revisionist's father Mani Ram Verma
lodged the First Information Report against
Ramsuresh husband of her daughter, her
mother-in-law Mewati Devi and opposite
party nos. 2 Gopal (devar), opposite party
no.3 Umesh (devar) and opposite party
no.4 Chotelal (father) under Sections- 498A, 304-B and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The Investigating Officer
illegally expunged the names of the
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and filed a
charge-sheet only against husband of the
deceased Ramsuresh and her mother-in-law
Mewati Devi under Section 306 IPC.
During trial P.W.- 1 Mani Ram Verma and
P.W.-2 Harish Chandra have deposed that
apart from husband and mother-in-law the
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were also
involved in the commission of murder of
the revisionist's sister, therefore, revisionist
moved an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. against the opposite party nos. 2 to
4 for facing trial along with husband and
mother-in-law of the deceased, thereafter,
revisionist father Maniram Verma filed an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
which was rejected vide its impugned order
dated 11.5.2022 by the trial court without
an application of judicial mind.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2 to 4 had opposed the
criminal revision and submitted that the
informant had named them in the FIR
merely on the ground that they were
relatives of deceased husband. No specific
role were assigned against them in the FIR,
during investigation, no evidence was
found against them, the Investigating
4 All. Vijay Shankar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
Officer has rightly exonerated their names
and did not filed charge-sheet against them.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party nos. 2 to 4 and learned AGA for the
State as well as perused the material
available on record.

6. Before considering the legality of
the impugned order dated 11.5.2022 passed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the statutory
provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and
law relating to it as propounded by the
Hon'ble Apex Court to be considered
which is quoted 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 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.

7. Section 319 Cr.P.C., the provisions
of Section 319 empowers to court to
proceed against any person not shown or
mentioned as accused in charge-sheet if it
appears from the evidence that such
persons committed an offence for which he
could be tried together with the main
accused against whom he should have been
charge sheeted and against whom trial is
taken place.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit
Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 in paragraph
nos.12 and 13 of its judgement has narrated
the scope of revision by the High Court u/s
397 Cr.P.C. which is as follows :

"12.Section 397 of the Code
vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case. The
object of this provision is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or
law. There has to be a well-founded error
and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the
various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is
no compliance with the provisions of law,
the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or perversely. These are not exhaustive
classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its
own merits.

13. Another well-accepted norm is
that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher
court is a very limited one and cannot be
exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be
against an interim or interlocutory order.
The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where
the Court is dealing with the question as to
whether the charge has been framed
properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless
the case substantially falls within the
categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced stage in the
proceedings under the CrPC."

9. In paragraph nos.17 and 19 of the
aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has narrated that before framing a
charge,
what
documents
should
be
considered by the trial court. It has also
provided about the extent of evidence
required for framing of a charge. In
paragraph
no.20
of
the
aforesaid
judgement, the Apex Court has compared
the power and extent of jurisdiction of the
High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. and Section
482 Cr.P.C. which is given hereunder:

"20.The jurisdiction of the
court
under
Section
397
can
be
exercised
so
as
to
examine
the
correctness, legality or propriety of an
order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be.
Though the section does not specifically
use the expression "prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to
secure
the
ends
of
justice",
the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very
limited one. The legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by a
court is the very foundation of exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 397 but
ultimately it also requires justice to be
done.
The
jurisdiction
could
be
exercised where there is palpable error,
non-compliance with the provisions of
law, the decision is completely erroneous
or where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand,
Section
482
is
based
upon
the
maxim quando
lex
aliquid
alicui
concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo
res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law
gives anything to anyone, it also gives
all those things without which the thing
itself would be unavoidable. The section
confers very wide power on the Court to
do justice and to ensure that the process
of the court is not permitted to be
abused."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para
117.3 and 117.4 in the case of Hardeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 3 SCC
92 has explained the meaning of word
'evidence' as used under Section 319
Cr.P.C.. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgement reads as under:-

"117.3. In view of the above
position the word "evidence" in Section
319CrPC has to be broadly understood
and not literally i.e. as evidence brought
during a trial.
4 All. Vijay Shankar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883

Question (ii)-Whether the word
"evidence" used in Section 319(1)CrPC
could only mean evidence tested by crossexamination or the court can exercise the
power under the said provision even on
the basis of the statement made in the
examination-in-chief
of
the
witness
concerned?Answer

117.4. Considering the fact that
under Section 319CrPC a person against
whom material is disclosed is only
summoned to face the trial and in such an
event under Section 319(4)CrPC the
proceeding against such person is to
commence from the stage of taking of
cognizance, the court need not wait for the
evidence against the accused proposed to
be summoned to be tested by crossexamination."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para
117.5 of the case of Hardeep Singh (supra)
has also explained the nature of satisfaction
required to invoke the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused. The
relevant paragraph of the judgement reads
as under:-

"117.5. Though under Section
319(4)(b)CrPC the accused subsequently
impleaded is to be treated as if he had
been an accused when the court initially
took cognizance of the offence, the degree
of satisfaction that will be required for
summoning a person under Section
319CrPC would be the same as for
framing a charge.The difference in the
degree of satisfaction for summoning the
original
accused
and
a
subsequent
accused is on account of the fact that the
trial may have already commenced against
the original accused and it is in the course
of such trial that materials are disclosed
against the newly summoned accused.
Fresh summoning of an accused will
result in delay of the trial therefore the
degree of satisfaction for summoning the
accused (original and subsequent) has to
be different."

12. The scope and ambit of Section
319 Cr.P.C. has been well-settled by the
pronouncement of Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3
SCC 92 and paras 105 and 106 which are
relevant for the purpose are reproduced
hereunder :

"105. Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C, 1973 is a discretionary and an
extraordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where
the circumstances of the case so warrant.
It is not to be exercised because the
Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the
opinion that some other person may also
be guilty of committing that offence. Only
where strong and cogent evidence occurs
against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier
manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court, not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be 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., 1973. In
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973, the purpose of
providing if "it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence" is clear from the
words "for which such person could be
tried together with the accused". The
words used are not "for which such
person could be convicted". There is,
therefore, no scope for the court acting
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 to form
any opinion as to the guilt of the
accused."

13. In S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs.
Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226,
this Court has observed and held as under :

"35. It needs to be highlighted
that when a person is named in the FIR by
the
complainant,
but
police,
after
investigation, finds no role of that
particular person and files the chargesheet without implicating him, the Court is
not powerless, and at the stage of
summoning, if the trial court finds that a
particular person should be summoned as
accused, even though not named in the
charge-sheet, it can do so. At that stage,
chance is given to the complainant also to
file a protest petition urging upon the trial
court to summon other persons as well
who were named in the FIR but not
implicated in the charge sheet. Once that
stage has gone, the Court is still not
powerless by virtue of Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C.
However,
this
section
gets
triggered when during the trial some
evidence surfaces against the proposed
accused."

14. In the case of Rajesh Vs. State of
Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368, after
considering the observations made by this
Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) referred
to hereinabove, this Court has further
observed and held that even in a case
where the stage of giving opportunity to the
complainant to file a protest petition urging
upon the trial court to summon other
persons as well who were named in F.I.R.
but not implicated in the charge-sheet has
gone, in that case also, the Court is still not
powerless by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.c.
and even those persons named in the F.I.R.
but not implicated in charge-sheet can be
summoned to face the trial provided during
the trial some evidence surfaces against the
proposed accused.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Yashodhan Singh and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another;
(2023) 9 SCC 108 has explained the law
purported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh (supra) regarding
the evidence required the satisfaction of the
Court for summoning a person under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The paragraph Nos.
22.6, 22.7 and 22.8 which are relevant for
the purpose are reproduced hereunder :

"22.6. It was also observed by
this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92
: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] that apart from
evidence in the strict legal sense recorded
during trial, any material that has been
received by the court after cognizance is
taken and before the trial commences, can
be utilised only for corroboration and to
support the evidence recorded by the court
to invoke the power under Section
319CrPC. Holding that the expression
"evidence" must be given a broad
meaning, it was observed that material
which is not exactly evidence recorded
before the court, but is a material
collected by the court, can be utilised to
corroborate evidence already recorded for
the purpose of summoning any other
4 All. Vijay Shankar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
person, other than the accused. Such
material would be supportive in nature to
facilitate the exposition of any other
accomplice whose complicity in the
offence may have been suppressed or had
escaped the notice of the court. Therefore,
any material brought before the court
even prior to the trial can be read within
the meaning of the expression "evidence"
for the purpose of Section 319CrPC.
While considering the evidence that
emanates during the trial, it was observed
by this Court that evidence recorded by
way of examination-in-chief and which is
untested
by
cross-examination
is
nevertheless evidence which can be
considered by the court for the exercise of
power under Section 319CrPC so long as,
it would appear to the court that some
other person who is not facing the trial,
may also have been involved in the
offence.

22.7. Further, Section 319CrPC
also uses the words "such person could be
tried", which means not to have a minitrial at the stage of Section 319CrPC by
having
examination
and
crossexamination and thereafter coming to a
prima facie conclusion on the overt act of
such person sought to be added. Such a
mini-trial will affect the right of the
person sought to be arraigned as an
accused rather than not having any crossexamination at all. As under Section
319(4)CrPC, such a person has the right
to
cross-examine
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
examine
the
defence
witnesses and advance his arguments. It
was further observed that the power under
Section 319CrPC can be exercised even
after completion of examination-in-chief
and the court does not have to wait till the
said
evidence
is
tested
on
crossexamination, for it is the satisfaction of
the court which can be gathered from the
reasons recorded by the court, in respect
of complicity of some other persons, not
facing the trial in the offence.

22.8. The test that has to be
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. Therefore, such satisfaction is
sine qua non for exercise of power under
Section 319CrPC. Ultimately, the exercise
of power is for the trial of such persons
summoned together with the accused
already on trial and not for conviction
with the accused. Therefore, at that stage,
the court need not form any definite
opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

16. The learned trial court has taken
into consideration the statement under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
of
independent
witnesses. The fact that P.W.-1 Maniram
Verma father of the deceased and P.W.-2
Harishchandra who is deceased uncle were
not eye witness in the incident, P.W.-1
Maniram Verma did not visit the place of
occurrence but he visited the hospital
where her daughter was under going
treatment for her burn injuries and died
thereafter. Hence, later on succumbed to
the burn injuries on 1.9.2014, the trial court
has given following other reasons for
rejecting application filed under Section
319 Cr.P.C. P.W.-1 and P.W.2 were not
eye witnesses in the incident. P.W.-1
Maniram Verma reached district Hospital
after receiving information of his son-inlaw RamSuresh. P.W.-2 Harischandra got
the information of burning and death of the
deceased
Chandrakanti
from
P.W.-1
Maniram Verma. P.Ws 1 and 2 have stated
that earlier they have not made any
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint
regarding
harassment
of
Chandkanti by her in-laws and O.P. No.2 to
4, the P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not assigned any
specific role to the opposite party no. 2 to
4.

17. The incident had taken place after
more than seven years of marriage of the
deceased, the Investigating officer have
collected
the
evidence
of
aforesaid
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the
effect that on the date of occasion, the
Opposite party no.2 to 4 had not visited the
place
of
occurrence
only deceased's
husband mother-in-law were present on the
place
of
occurrence.
The
aforesaid
witnesses have given the statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that
deceased was under depression for not
having a son, she had quarrel with her
mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law scolded
her, thereafter, she sprayed kerosene oil on
herself and lit it with fire.

18. The opposite party No. 2 Gopal
and opposite party No. 3 Umesh are devar
and opposite party No. 4 Chotelal is the
father-in-law of the deceased Chandrakanti.
No specific allegations of involvement in
the alleged crime is imputes against them.

19. The apex court held in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The
State of Bihar and Others, 2022(6) SCC
5991, has held that in such cases relatives
of husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime
is made out.

20. The statutory provisions under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. as has been explained
by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
requires stronger quality of evidence then
merely prima facie case against the
accused. The quality of evidence should be
more stronger than prima facie case which
is required for convicting the accused of
any offence. The power provided in Section
319
Cr.P.C.,
it
is
extraordinary
discretionary power which should be used
sparingly and with due circumspection .

21. Considering the impugned order
in light of evidence on record, the statutory
provisions as interpreted by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by
the trial court .

22. The Criminal Revision is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 886
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 402 of 2023

Smt. Aparna Kushwaha & Anr.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Shashank Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Sri
Prakhar Kumar Kushwaha, Sri Pramod
Kumar

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 & 127 -
Criminal Revision - Revisionists challenged order
dated 22.03.2022 granting interim maintenance
of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs.3,000/- p.m.
to daughter, seeking enhancement. Court held: