# Vinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1077 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinesh-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52281
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 161,164 - Statement of
victim, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
406, The Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section - Section 3/4 - A Magistrate
cannot add or subtract charges at the
cognizance stage in cases based on police
reports - power lies with the Trial Court -
Exercise of this power is permitted only at
the framing of charge stage. (Para -13,14)

Victim filed an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC. - Charge sheet filed against some
accused, but not O.P. No. 2. - Victim's
statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. -
application filed at cognizance stage - seeking
re-examination of victim's statement - Applicant
sought to add rape charge (Section 376 IPC)
against O.P. No. 2. - Trial Court's power to
summon additional accused at the stage of
cognizance disputed. (Para -1 to 13)

HELD: - No addition or subtraction of offences
at cognizance stage. No sufficient evidence to
summon O.P. No. 2 for offences under Section
406 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Trial
Court can consider summoning O.P. No. 2 under
Section 319 CrPC & can proceed under Section
217 CrPC if evidence emerges during trial.(Para
-18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
443
stage, where other cited judgements would
have application.

(xi) The law in regard to
amendment in a complaint is being referred
in Narender Kumar @ Brothers (supra).
The Trial Court has adopted a wrong
approach to consider the case and in
interest of justice such approach could not
prejudice the complainant's case. In first
round Revisional Court has remitted the
case
for
fresh
consideration,
where
impleadment application was filed in view
of Aneeta Hada (supra) therefore, it was
maintainable, however, as discussed above
said application was not decided on merit.

(xii) Therefore, this Court is of
considered opinion that impugned order in
its present form does not survive.

10. In view of above, impugned
summoning orders in all these applications
are set aside and matter is remitted back to
Trial Court concerned to decide the
impleadment applications in accordance
with law after hearing complainant only as
well as taking note of above referred
judgments. Applicants are not required to
be heard at this stage. The proceedings
shall be concluded within two months from
today, if there is no legal impediment.

11. The applications are accordingly
disposed of.

12. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 1077 of 2020

Vinesh Kumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shishir Tandon

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 161,164 - Statement of
victim, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
406, The Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section - Section 3/4 - A Magistrate
cannot add or subtract charges at the
cognizance stage in cases based on police
reports - power lies with the Trial Court -
Exercise of this power is permitted only at
the framing of charge stage. (Para -13,14)

Victim filed an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC. - Charge sheet filed against some
accused, but not O.P. No. 2. - Victim's
statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. -
application filed at cognizance stage - seeking
re-examination of victim's statement - Applicant
sought to add rape charge (Section 376 IPC)
against O.P. No. 2. - Trial Court's power to
summon additional accused at the stage of
cognizance disputed. (Para -1 to 13)

HELD: - No addition or subtraction of offences
at cognizance stage. No sufficient evidence to
summon O.P. No. 2 for offences under Section
406 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Trial
Court can consider summoning O.P. No. 2 under
Section 319 CrPC & can proceed under Section
217 CrPC if evidence emerges during trial.(Para
-18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Guj. Vs Girish Radhakrishnan Varde,
(2014) 3 SCC 659
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Dharampal & ors. Vs St. of Har.. & anr.,
(2014) 3 SCC 306

3. Kishun Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (1993) 2
SCC 16

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned
counsel for applicant, Mrs. Mamta Singh,
Advocate on behalf of O.P. No.2 and Sri
B.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.

2. Applicant before this Court has
approached for quashing the impugned
order dated 29.11.2019 passed by Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in
Case No. 1049 of 2019, (State of U.P. Vs.
Narendra Yadav and others) arising out of
Case Crime No.885 of 2018 under Section
406 of I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
Police
Station-Barra,
District-Kanpur Nagar.

3. Applicant before this Court is
father of the victim, whose marriage was
fixed with O.P. No.2 i.e. complainant.

4. Complainant lodged an F.I.R.
under Sections 376, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against
present applicant and 12 co-accused being
his
close
family
members
including
women. Contents of F.I.R. is reproduced
hereinafter :

"सेिा में श्रीमान िानाध्यक्ष, िाना
बराा, कानपुर नर्र महोदय सविनय ननिेदन
है कक प्रािी की पुत्री कु० रोली यादि का
वििाह योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह पुत्र श्री सशिराम दास
ननिासी ग्राम पुरिा बक्शा, िाना साहल,
स्िला औरैया के साि र्य हुयी िी, स्िसकी
बरीक्षा ददनािंक 10.10.2016 को ि र्ोद
भराई का कायाक्रम ददनािंक 20.11.2016 को
मिंदाककनी र्ेथट हाउस, र्ोविन्द्द नर्र से
हुआ िा। यह शादी योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह ि उसके
पररिार के समथर् सदथयों द्िारा प्रािी की
पुत्री को कई बार देखने के बाद र्य की
र्यी िी। प्रािी ने योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह ि उसके
बडे भाई नरेन्द्र ससिंह, िरन ससिंह, प्रेम ससिंह,
नरेन्द्र ससिंह का पुत्र सिंदीप ि कुलदीप,
योर्ेन्द्र की मािं श्रीमर्ी कान्द्र्ी देिी, वपर्ा
शिराम दास ि योर्ेन्द्र र्ीनों भाभीयािं रािा
कुन्द्र्ी ि भािना। इन लोर्ों की मािंर् के
अनुसार प्रािी ने उपरोक्र् सभी लोर्ों को
बरीक्षा से र्ोद भराई र्क 2-3 बार में
रूपया
22,50,000/-नकद
ि
रूपया
1,50,000/-िेक के माध्यम से बडे भाई
विष्णु कुमार यादि के द्िारा ि हमारे
द्िारा रूपया 1,00,000/-की िेक सिंख्या
551166 ि 551167 अिाार् कुल िनरासश
रूपया 25,00,000/-उक्र् सभी लोर्ों को
प्रािी द्िारा ददया र्या िा। इसके अलािा
करीब 3,00,000/-का सामान भी ददया र्या
िा बरीक्षा ि र्ोद भराई के बाद अक्सर
योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह प्रािी के घर आर्ा िार्ा िा
र्िा रोली को घुमाने के बहाने अपने साि
बाहर ले िार्ा िा और उसकी इच्छा के
बबना बहला िुसला कर रोली के साि
शारीररक सम्बन्द्ि भी बनार्ा िा कई बार
र्ो योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह प्रािी के घर पर भी रूका
और घर में भी रोली को बहला िुसला कर
रोली की थिर्न्द्त्र सहमनर् के बबना यह
7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
445
कहकर कक र्ुमसे ही र्ो मेरी शादी होनी है
रोली के साि दुष्कमा ककया। उपरोक्र् लोर्
प्रािी के बार-2 कहने के बाद शादी की
र्ारीख टालर्े रहे प्रािी यह सोि समझ कर
विचिास करर्ा रहा कक यह लोर् सि कह
रहे हैं परन्द्र्ु वपछले कुछ ददनों से उपरोक्र्
लोर्ों ने अिानक शादी की बार्िीर् करना
बन्द्द कर ददया र्ब मिबूर होकर प्रािी ने
ददनािंक 24.09.2018 को द्िारा अचििक्र्ा
एक लीर्ल नोदटस के िररये उक्र् नरेन्द्र
ससिंह, योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह र्िा नरेन्द्र के लडके
कुलदीप, सन्द्दीप ि उसके अन्द्य बाकी भाई
लोर् ि वपर्ा एििं नरेन्द्र के िािा प्रहलाद ि
ससद्ि र्ोपाल आदद लोर्ों ने प्रािी से कहा
कक अब लालि बढर्ा िा रहा है र्ुम्हें शादी
में एक थकावपायों र्ाडी ि 200 र्ि का
के०डी०ए० का प्लाट और देना पडेर्ा र्ब
िाकर यह शादी होर्ी िरना शादी नहीिं
करेंर्े। यह सुनकर प्रािी के पैरों के नीिे से
िमीन ननकल र्यी। प्रािी ने उक्र् लोर्ों से
प्रािाना की ि अनुनय विनय ककया परन्द्र्ु
िह लोर् उक्र् अनर्ररक्र् दहेि के बबना
शादी करने को र्ैयार नहीिं है। प्रािी को
िानकारी हुयी कक ककसी और के यहािं
योर्ेन्द्र की शादी र्य करने िा रहे हैं।
उपरोक्र् लोर् वपछले 2 िषों से शादी का
झूिंठा
झािंसा
देकर
प्रािी
से
रूपया
25,00,000/-हडप सलया र्िा लर्ार्र 2
सालों र्क प्रािी को िोखा देकर प्रािी के
साि विचिासघार् करर्े रहे र्िा योर्ेन्द्र
शादी का झूिंठा झािंसा देकर प्रािी की पुत्री
रोली के साि रोली की थिर्न्द्त्र सहमनर् के
बबना शारीररक सम्बन्द्ि भी बनार्ा रहा।
अब अनर्ररक्र् दहेि की मािंर् न मानने पर
शादी करने से मना कर ददया र्िा प्रािी
द्िारा ददया र्या रूपया 25,00,000/-िापस
करने से थपष्ट रूप से मना कर ददया है।
उक्र् लोर्ों के िोखा देने से प्रािी की पुत्री
अिसादग्रथर् रहने लर्ी है र्िा उसे र्हरा
सदमा पहुिंिा है। स्िसके सलए योर्ेन्द्र ि
उसके घर िाले पूरी र्रह से स्िम्मेदार है।
अर्ः श्रीमान िी आपसे विनम्र ननिेदन है
कक उक्र् लोर्ों के विरूद्ि विचिासघार्,
िोखािडी िसूली, दहेि मािंर्ने ि लेने र्िा
योर्ेन्द्र द्िारा प्रािी की पुत्री रोली से
दुष्कमा करने की ररपोटा दिा कर कठोर से
कठोर दण्डात्क्मक कानूनी कायािाही ककये
िाने की कृपा करें। आपकी महान दया
होर्ी।"

5. Investigation was conducted in
aforesaid F.I.R. wherein statement of
victim was recorded under Section 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. For reference same are
reproduced hereinafter:

"नकल बयान 161 Cr.P.C.

बयान पीडडर्ा रोली यादि पुत्री श्री
विनेश कुमार यादि नन० 155, बराा र्ािंि,
िाना-बराा,
िनपद
कानपुर
नर्र
सिं०
मु०अ०सिं० 885/18, िारा-376, 406 आईपीसी
ि 3⁄4 डी०पी० एक्ट अन्द्र्र्ार् िारा 161
Cr.P.C. पूछने पर बयान ककया कक मेरा
नाम रोली यादि पुत्री श्री विनेश कुमार
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
यादि नन० 155, बराा र्ािंि की रहने िाली हूिं
मेरी उम्र 24 िषा है। मेरी सर्ाई योर्ेन्द्र
ससिंह यादि पुत्र श्री सशिराम दास है। िह
बक्शा पूरिा, स्िला औरैया के रहने िाले हैं।
मेरी सर्ाई दद० 20.11.16 को योर्ेन्द्र के
साि मिंदाककनी र्ेथट हाउस, र्ोविन्द्द नर्र
में हुआ िा। सर्ाई के ददन से ही िह मेरे
पास िोन करने लर्े। इसके बाद इनके
कहने पर हमने स्िम ज्िाइन ककया। स्िम
के बाहर ये मुझसे समलने आने लर्े। िीरे-2
मेरे घर पर भी आने लर्े मेरे डैडी दूि डेरी
का काम करर्े हैं। स्िसके ससलससले में ओ
अक्सर पिंिाब िार्े िे। िहािं से करीब 10
ददन बाद ही घर पर आर्े िे। योर्ेन्द्र
यादि िो कक कानपुर में ही सरकारी टीिर
िे। र्ोविन्द्द नर्र ि बराा-2 में कोचििंर्
पढार्े िे। िब िे घर पर आर्े िे र्ो मेरे
यहािं रार् में भी रूकर्े िे। मेरी छोटी बहन
को िो मेरे साि ही रहर्ी िी। उसको दूसरे
रूम में भेि ददये और मुझसे बोले कक अब
र्ो हम लोर्ों की शादी होने िाली है। मुझे
बहला िुसला कर मेरे साि शारीररक सिंबिंि
बनाये। डैडी ज्यादार्र बाहर रहर्े िे उनके
र्ैर मौिूदर्ी में योर्ेन्द्र मेरे घर आर्े िे।
और मेरे साि लर्ार्ार शारीररक सम्बन्द्ि
बनाने लर्े। इसी बीि योर्ेन्द्र का PCS में
ज्िाइननिंर् हो र्या किर इसके बाद इनके
बडे भाई नरेन्द्र का िोन डैडी के पास आया
और बोले की योर्ेन्द्र का PCS में ससलेक्शन
हो र्या। र्ो मुझे दहेि में 25 लाख रू०
और एक थकावपायो न्द्यू माडल और 2 प्लाट
िादहए र्भी हम शादी करेंर्े। र्ो मेरे डैडी
ने योर्ेन्द्र के भाई िरन ससिंह को एक-एक
लाख की दो िेक दे ददये एक मेरे डेडी ने
ददया र्िा दूसरा मेरे र्ाऊ विष्णु कुमार
यादि ने ददया। र्िा 2-3 बार में
22,50,000रू० नकद ददया इसके अलािा
3,00,000 का सामान भी ददया किर बोले
कक रेननिंर् के बाद शादी करेंर्े। रेननिंर् के
बाद अब िे लोर् और दहेि की मािंर् करने
लर्े। दहेि की रकम न देने पर शादी करने
से मना कर ददये। र्िा योर्ेन्द्र ि उनके
घर िालों ने किर योर्ेन्द्र की ककसी और
िर्ह शादी कर ददये। यही मेरा बयान है।

प्रचन-1 आप की उम्र क्या है। और
आप की सशक्षा क्या है।

उत्तर-1
मेरी
शैक्षक्षक
योग्यर्ा
M.A. है। र्िा मेरी िन्द्मनर्चि 31.1.1994
है। मैं अपने साि हाईथकूल ि इण्टर के
अिंक पत्रों की िोटो कािी लायी हूिं। िो
आपको दे रही हूिं।

नोट- मैं म०आ० 2032 रानी
यादि प्रमाखणर् करर्ी हूिं कक पीडडर्ा रोली
यादि ने िो बोला है। िही शब्द ि शब्द
अिंककर् ककया है। र्िा पढाकर हथर्ाक्षर
बनिाये र्ये।

हथर्ा, म०आ० रानी यादि, िाना
बराा दद० 4.11.18

"िो मैं बोली हूिं। िही सलखा र्या
है पढकर हथर्ाक्षर बनाई" रोली यादि।

xxx
7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
447

बयान िारा 164 CrPC पीडडर्ा
रोली यादि D/O श्री विनेश कुमार यादि
ननिासी 155 बराा र्ािंि िाना बराा, िनपद
कानपुरनर्र सम्बस्न्द्िर् मु०अ०सिं०885/18
िारा 376, 406 IPC ि 3⁄4 DP Act िाना बराा
कानपुरनर्र

मेरे द्िारा पीडडर्ा को समझाया
र्या कक िो यह बयान बबना ककसी भय के
दे, उसने इस बार् को समझा र्त्क्पचिार्
सःशपि यह बयान ददया कक-

मेरी शादी योर्ेन्द्र यादि से 2016
में हुई िी। र्ब िो एक थकूल अध्यापक िे।
हमारी बरीक्षा 10.10.16 को हुई िी, स्िसमें
हमने 10 लाख नकद ददया िा और 3 लाख
का सामान ददया िा।

िरीक्षी के बाद योर्ेन्द्र का ियन
PCS में हो र्या। उसके बाद से योर्ेन्द्र,
नरेन्द्र, िरन, प्रेम ससिंह, सिंदीप, कुलदीप,
कान्द्र्ी देिी, सशिरामदास, रािा, कुन्द्र्ी देिी,
भािना, प्रहलाद, ससद्ि र्ोपाल मुझसे और
मेरे घरिालों से पैसे मािंर्ने लर्े। घर का
हर इन्द्सान मुझसे काल करके की 2 लाख
कभी 1 लाख रूपये बहाने से मािंर्र्ा िा।
और बोलर्ा िा कक बस इर्ने पैसे दे दो, र्ो
हम शादी की र्ारीख बर्ा देंर्े। ऐसा करर्े
करर्े पूरे 25 लाख ले िुके है और अब
शादी से इन्द्कार कर रहे है। योर्ेन्द्र की
शादी कही और र्य कर दी है।

मैं और योर्ेन्द्र के साि दो साल
र्क िे। उसने मेरे साि िबरदथर्ी
शारीररक सिंबिंि थिावपर् करे। िो अक्सर
मेरे घर रूकने आर्े िे और िुपके से मेरे
कमरे में आ िार्े िे। मेरी इच्छा के
विरूद्ि िो मेरे साि सिंबिंि थिावपर् करर्े
िे।

अिंर् में योर्ेन्द्र, नरेन्द्र ने एक
थकारवपओ कार और एक 2 र्ि का प्लाट
मािंर्ा। और शादी की र्ारीख को टालर्े रहे।
और अब मना कर ददया।"

6. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed only under Section 406 I.P.C. and
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against
Narenda Singh and ShivRam Das i.e.
brother of O.P. 2 and his father. No chargesheet was filed against any other accused
persons named in the F.I.R., including
opposite
party
no.2
herein
i.e.
complainant's husband as well as no
offence was found under Section 376 of
I.P.C.

7. At the stage of cognizance, victim
filed an application dated 2.1.2019 with a
prayer that during investigation, statement
of victim recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was not considered, therefore, it
may be sent to the Investigation Officer for
further investigation.

8. Learned Trial Court considered the
above referred application and rejected the
same and thereafter took cognizance of the
offence and summoned two accused
persons against whom charge-sheet was
filed. Relevant part of said order is
mentioned hereinafter:

"प्रथर्ुर् मामले में िादी मुकदमा
पीडडर्ा का वपर्ा है, स्िसके द्िारा प्रिम
सूिना ररपोटा दिा कराई र्ई है। शादी न हो
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पाने पर उभयपक्षों के मध्य समझौर्ा हुआ
है, स्िसे िादी मुकदमा द्िारा िाडे िाने का
किन ककया र्या है। उक्र् िटे हुए
समझौर्ानामें की िोटो प्रनर् वििेिक द्िारा
केस डायरी के साि प्रथर्ुर् की र्ई। प्रथर्ुर्
मामले में वििेिक द्िारा िादी मुकदमा के
सर्े भाई सुरेश यादि पुत्र िर्िीिन लाल,
विष्णु कुमार यादि पुत्र िर्िीिन लाल
र्िा रािेश कुमार िो कक सुरेश का साला
है, राम प्रर्ाप यादि पुत्र िर्िीिन लाल
र्िा रािेश कुमार िो कक सुरेश का साला
है, राम प्रर्ाप यादि पुत्र थि० अर्र ससिंह
यादि उक्र् साक्षक्षयों में रािेश के अलािा
शेष सभी साक्षी िादी मुकदमा के मकान
निं० 155, बराा में ही ननिास करर्े हैं, स्िनके
द्िारा घटना का समिान नहीिं ककया र्या
है, साि ही यह भी किन ककया र्या है कक
असभयुक्र् योर्ेन्द्र ससिंह द्िारा िादी मुकदमा
द्िारा कचिर् घटना काररर् नहीिं की र्ई है।
उपरोक्र् के अलािा वििेिक द्िारा िादी
मुकदमा, पीडडर्ा, उसकी मािं ि अन्द्य
साक्षक्षयों के बयान दिा कर ननयमानुसार
वििेिना की र्ई है। वििेिक द्िारा िारा-
376 का अपराि नहीिं पार्े हुए न्द्यायालय में
िारा-406 भा०दिं०सिं० ि िारा-3/4 दहेि
प्रनर्षेि अचिननयम में आरोप पत्र प्रथर्ुर्
ककया र्या है। सम्पूणा केस डायरी के
अिलोकन से पीडडर्ा की ओर से प्रथर्ुर्
प्रािाना पत्र का समिान नहीिं होर्ा है।
वििेिक द्िारा ननयमानुसार वििेिना कर
आरोप पत्र न्द्यायालय प्रेवषर् ककया र्या है।
आरोप पत्र न्द्यायालय प्रेवषर् ककए िाने के
उपरान्द्र् पुनः िारा-164 दिं०प्र०सिं० के बयान
वििेिक के पास भेिे िाने का आिार
पयााप्र् नहीिं है। र्द्नुसार पीडडर्ा की ओर
से प्रथर्ुर् प्रािाना पत्र ददनािंककर् 02.01.19
ननरथर् ककया िार्ा है।

न्द्यायालय में प्रेवषर् आरोप पत्र
सिं० 550/2018, अिंर्र्ार् िारा-406 भा०दिं०सिं०
ि िारा-3/4 दहेि प्रनर्षेि अचिननयम
अिंर्र्ार् िाना बराा, कानपुर नर्र विरूद्ि
कचिर् असभयुक्र्र्ण पर प्रसिंज्ञान सलया
िार्ा है।

असभयुक्र्र्ण
िररए
सम्मन
ददनािंक 31.01.19 को र्लब हों।"

9. It appears that a report was filed by
Investigation
Officer
after
further
investigation, whereby the charge-sheet
submitted earlier was again approved.

10. Learned counsel for applicant has
submitted that aforesaid order is impugned
in present case. It was urged on behalf of
complainant that O.P. No.2 be summoned
under Section 376 I.P.C. as on basis of
material available, said offence was made
out.

11.

Aforesaid
argument
was
considered by learned Trial Court and by
impugned order dated 29.11.2019, it was
rejected and relevant part thereof is
mentioned hereinafter:

"प्रथर्ुर्
मामले
में
ददनािंक11.02.2019 को विद्िान पूिााचिकारी द्िारा
पूिा में प्रेवषर् आरोप पत्र के आिार पर
7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
449
सिंज्ञान सलया िा िुका है, अचग्रम वििेिना
के उपरान्द्र् वििेिक द्िारा पूिा में वििेिना
के ननष्कषों से अपनी सहमनर् िर्ाई है,
ककसी नये र्थ्य का उल्लेख नहीिं ककया
र्या है। ऐसी स्थिनर् में न्द्यायालय के मर्
में ककसी अन्द्य असभयुक्र् के विरूद्ि ककसी
अन्द्य िाराओिं में सिंज्ञान सलये िाने का कोई
औचित्क्य प्रर्ीर् नहीिं हो रहा है।

न्द्यायालय का यह मर् है कक
न्द्यायालय आदेश ददनािंककर्-11.01.2019 को
न र्ो अपाथर् कर सकर्ा है और न ही
उसका
पुनविालोकन
कर
सकर्ा
है।
आपराचिक
क्षेत्राचिकार
िाले
वििारण
न्द्यायालय को अपने आदेश के पुनविालोकन
का क्षेत्राचिकार प्राप्र् नहीिं है। इस सिंबिंि में
अदालर् प्रसाद बनाम रूप लाल स्ििंदल ि
अन्द्य, 2004(50) ए०सी०सी० 924 में माननीय
उच्िर्म न्द्यायालय द्िारा प्रनर्पाददर् विचि
व्यिथिा अनुकरणीय है।"

12. Learned counsel for applicant has
not been able to deny that that at the stage
of cognizance in view of judgment passed
by Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs.
Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3
SCC 659, learned Trial Court has no
option, to add or subtract any offence other
than offence under which a charge-sheet
has been filed, therefore, at this stage,
offence under Section 376 I.P.C. could not
be added.

13. Learned counsel for applicant has
referred judgments passed by Supreme
Court in case of Dharampal & Ors Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr (2014) 3 SCC 306
and Kishun Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 to emphasize that
Court of Sessions has complete and
unfettered jurisdiction to take cognizance
of
offence
which
would
include
summoning of a person or persons whose
complicity in commission of crime was
prima-facie evident gathered from material
available on record, even though no charge
sheet was filed against them and for that
learned Trial Court does not need to wait
till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
reached in trial. For reference relevant
paragraphs
of
aforesaid
judgments
Dharampal and Kishun Singh (Supra) are
reproduced hereinafter :

"40. Dharampal (supra) In that
view of the matter, we have no hesitation in
agreeing with the views expressed in
Kishun Singh case [Kishun Singh v. State
of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 : 1993 SCC
(Cri) 470] that the Sessions Court has
jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to
take cognizance of the offences of the
persons not named as offenders but whose
complicity in the case would be evident
from the materials available on record.
Hence, even without recording evidence,
upon committal under Section 209, the
Sessions Judge may summon those persons
shown in column 2 of the police report to
stand trial along with those already named
therein.

16. Kishun Singh (supra) . We
have already indicated earlier from the
ratio of this Court's decisions in the cases
of Raghubans Dubey [(1967) 2 SCR 423 :
AIR 1967 SC 1167 : 1967 Cri LJ 1081] and
Hareram [(1978) 4 SCC 58 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 496 : (1979) 1 SCR 349 : AIR 1978
SC 1568] that once the court takes
cognizance of the offence (not the offender)
it becomes the court's duty to find out the
real offenders and if it comes to the
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusion that besides the persons put up
for trial by the police some others are also
involved in the commission of the crime, it
is the court's duty to summon them to stand
trial along with those already named, since
summoning them would only be a part of
the process of taking cognizance. We have
also pointed out the difference in the
language of Section 193 of the two Codes;
under the old Code the Court of Session
was precluded from taking cognizance of
any offence as a court of original
jurisdiction
unless
the
accused
was
committed to it whereas under the present
Code the embargo is diluted by the
replacement of the words the accused by
the words the case. Thus, on a plain
reading of Section 193, as it presently
stands once the case is committed to the
Court of Session by a Magistrate under the
Code, the restriction placed on the power
of the Court of Session to take cognizance
of an offence as a court of original
jurisdiction gets lifted. On the Magistrate
committing the case under Section 209 to
the Court of Session the bar of Section 193
is lifted thereby investing the Court of
Session
complete
and
unfettered
jurisdiction of the court of original
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence
which
would
include
the
summoning of the person or persons whose
complicity in the commission of the crime
can prima facie be gathered from the
material available on record. The Full
Bench of the High Court of Patna rightly
appreciated the shift in Section 193 of the
Code from that under the old Code in the
case of Sk. Lutfur Rahman [1985 PLJR 640
: 1985 Cri LJ 1238 (Pat HC) (FB)] as
under:

"Therefore, what the law under
Section 193 seeks to visualise and provide
for now is that the whole of the incident
constituting the offence is to be taken
cognizance of by the Court of Session on
commitment and not that every individual
offender must be so committed or that in
case it is not so done then the Court of
Session would be powerless to proceed
against persons regarding whom it may be
fully convinced at the very threshold of the
trial that they are prima facie guilty of the
crime as well .... Once the case has been
committed, the bar of Section 193 is
removed or, to put it in other words, the
condition therefore stands satisfied vesting
the Court of Session with the fullest
jurisdiction to summon any individual
accused of the crime."

We are in respectful agreement
with the distinction brought out between
the old Section 193 and the provision as it
now stands."

14. Learned counsel for applicant has
referred two arguments. Firstly on basis of
material available and statement of victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
offence of rape is made out against
O.P.No.2. However, as referred above, in
Varde (supra), it has been held that no
addition or subtraction in offences under
which charge-sheet was filed could be done
at the stage of cognizance or summoning
the accused and relevant part of said
judgment is mentioned hereinafter:

"The
question,
therefore,
emerges
as
to
whether
the
complainant/informant/prosecution would
be precluded from seeking a remedy if the
investigating authorities have failed in their
duty by not including all the sections of
IPC on which offence can be held to have
been made out in spite of the facts
disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously
has to be in the negative as the prosecution
cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by
ignoring exclusion of the sections which
7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
451
constitute the offence if the investigating
authorities for any reason whatsoever have
failed to include all the offences into the
charge-sheet based on the FIR on which
investigation had been conducted. But then
a further question arises as to whether this
lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by
the Magistrate before whom the matter
comes up for taking cognizance after
submission of the charge-sheet and as
already stated, the Magistrate in a case
which is based on a police report cannot
add or subtract sections at the time of
taking cognizance as the same would be
permissible by the trial court only at the
time of framing of charge under Sections
216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the
case may be which means that after
submission of the charge-sheet it will be
open for the prosecution to contend before
the appropriate trial court at the stage of
framing of charge to establish that on the
given state of facts the appropriate sections
which according to the prosecution should
be framed can be allowed to be framed.
Simultaneously, the accused also has the
liberty at this stage to submit whether the
charge under a particular provision should
be framed or not and this is the appropriate
forum in a case based on police report to
determine whether the charge can be
framed and a particular section can be
added or removed depending upon the
material collected during investigation as
also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the
charge-sheet."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. Accordingly, first argument is
rejected. Second limb of argument of
learned counsel for applicant is that on
basis of material available, O.P. No.2 may
be summoned to face trial at least for the
offence under which charge-sheet has been
filed i.e. for Section 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and for that counsel
for applicant has referred judgments passed
in Dharampal and Kishun Singh (supra).

16. Per contra, learned counsel for
O.P.No.2 and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the above submissions and they submittted
that on basis of material available, no case
is made out against O.P. No.2 to summon
him for offence under which charge-sheet
was filed.

17. I have carefully perused the above
referred part of judgments of Dharampal
and Kishun Singh (supra) and law in
regard to summoning is clear that since
cognizance
is
taken
of
an
offence,
therefore, in case there is a complicity of
accused against whom charge-sheet has not
been filed still, they could be summoned.

18. In order to appreciate as to
whether there are sufficient evidence to
summon O.P. No.2 for the offence under
Section 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, I
have carefully perused statements of
complainant and victim also. However,
there is no specific allegation against O.P.
No.2 that he has demanded dowry or he
was a party in the allegations that the
amount paid towards marriage was not
returned, therefore, on basis of material
available, Court is of the view that even no
offence is made out against O.P. No.2 to
summon him for offence under Section 406
I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act at the stage of
cognizance and summoning. However, this
order will not come in the way, if Trial
Court at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
on basis of evidence available during trial
found material to summon O.P. No.2
before trial under Section 406 of I.P.C. and
3/4 of D.P. Act. It is also observed that if
there is evidence during trial, against
applicant or co-accused for the offence
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under which charge-sheet has not been
filed in such event, complainant as well as
Court is at liberty to proceed under Section
217 Cr.P.C. at appropriate stage.

19. Prayers made in this application
are accordingly rejected.

20.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction, this application is
disposed of.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1820 of 2024

Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anita Singh, Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,
Nirmla Kumari, Prem Babu Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Arvind Agrawal, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, 202, 204 &
482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 304, 420, 467, 468 & 302 -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order - deceased executed a Will in
favour of applicants - Civil suit for cancellation
of Will filed by complainant - in order to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute complainant
lodged an FIR - final report was submitted -
direction for further investigation - again a final
report was submitted stating that there was no
reason to take a contrary view to earlier final
report - A protest petition - treated as
complaint - Trial court, only on the basis that,
deceased father who was an 80 years old
person and suffering from old age ailments was
died after a day of execution of Will, issued
summoning order u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - court finds
that, already a civil suit for cancellation of will is
pending and there is no material before the trial
court as well as no reason has been assigned
that there are sufficient ground to proceed
against applicants - further, the ingredients of
section 420 & 304 IPC are not made out -
process hence, impugned summoning order as
well as entire proceedings are hereby quashed.
(Para - 9, 14, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. M. Mohan Vs State Represented by SHO &
anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 339),

2. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah. (2022
SCC OnLine SC 1383),
3. Sachin Gang Vs St.of U.P. & anr.(2024 INSC
72).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Applicants are aggrieved by
impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in
Complaint Case No. 22712 of 2022 (Dev
Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma and
others), under Sections 304, 420 IPC,
Police
Station
Shikohabad,
District
Firozabad,
whereby
they
have
been
summoned to face trial.

2. Complainant has initially lodged a
FIR for offence under Sections 467, 468,
420, 302 IPC that applicants who are his
brother
and
Bhabhi have
committed
offence of cheating and forgery whereby
they have forcefully took signatures and
thumb impressions of his father and
executed a Will on 27.01.2017 in their
favour in exclusion of Complainant and