# Yuvraj Naag Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yuvraj-naag-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50249
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Against
summoning order - FIR was lodged against
six named accused persons including present
revisionist
by
first
informant
-
After
investigation, no charge sheet was submitted
against present revisionist - St.ments of first
informant
and
other
family
members
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., they St.d that
another accused and present revisionist
harassed and assaulted the victim/deceased
- Relying on this, Trial Court took cognizance
u/s
306
I.P.C.
-
Summoned
present
revisionist
with
other
co-accused
-
Revisionist
contention
-
Trial
Court
committed error in issuing process to present
revisionist, against whom charge sheet was
not submitted - Further submitted that if
C.J.M. was found to be entitled to issue
process u/s 190 Cr.P.C. against any person
against whom no charge sheet has been
filed, then in such eventuality, provision u/s
319, 461 Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory
- St. arugued that CJM has unfettered power
to issue summon any such person who has
not been mentioned as accused in charge
sheet or FIR - Held, no illegality in impugned
order, in view of law laid down in Nahar
Singh (infra). (Para 3, 4, 13)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
materials on record, the courts comes to the
conclusion that commission of offenc is a
probable a case for framing charge exist.
An order of discharge would be warranted
only in those cases where the court is
satisfied that there are no chances of
conviction and the trial court would be an
exercise infutility.

8. The learned trial court has
considered the entire facts, evidence and
other material available on record and after
analyzing it has come to the conclusion that
there is sufficient ground to frame charge
U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 504 & 506
IPC and thus has rejected the discharge
application. So there is no illegality in the
impugned summoning order.

9. Accordingly, the revision is devoid
of merits and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 600
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 471 of 2023

Yuvraj Naag ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ashish Kumar Rastogi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Against
summoning order - FIR was lodged against
six named accused persons including present
revisionist
by
first
informant
-
After
investigation, no charge sheet was submitted
against present revisionist - St.ments of first
informant
and
other
family
members
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., they St.d that
another accused and present revisionist
harassed and assaulted the victim/deceased
- Relying on this, Trial Court took cognizance
u/s
306
I.P.C.
-
Summoned
present
revisionist
with
other
co-accused
-
Revisionist
contention
-
Trial
Court
committed error in issuing process to present
revisionist, against whom charge sheet was
not submitted - Further submitted that if
C.J.M. was found to be entitled to issue
process u/s 190 Cr.P.C. against any person
against whom no charge sheet has been
filed, then in such eventuality, provision u/s
319, 461 Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory
- St. arugued that CJM has unfettered power
to issue summon any such person who has
not been mentioned as accused in charge
sheet or FIR - Held, no illegality in impugned
order, in view of law laid down in Nahar
Singh (infra). (Para 3, 4, 13)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Prasad
Shrikanht
Purohit
Vs
St.
of
Maharashtra, 2015 (3) SCC (Cri) 138, (Para 77)

2. Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police,
1985 AIR (SC) 1285

3. Nahar Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 5 SCC 295

4. Dharam Pal Vs St. of Har., 2005 SCC Online
SC 1781

5. Kishun Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16

6. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2014) 3 SCC
92, (Para 111)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Rastogi, learned
counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag
Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
5 All. Yuvraj Naag Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
601

2. The instant criminal revision has
been has been filed by the present
revisionist against order dated 24.02.2023,
passed
by
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Sitapur, arising out of Case
Crime No.0389/2022, under Section 306
I.P.C., Police Station Maanpur, District
Sitapur, whereby learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sitapur summoned the present
revisionist.

3. Brief facts of the instant case are
that a first information report bearing Case
Crime No.0389/2022 came to be lodged
against
six
named
accused
persons
including the present revisionist by the first
informant, Vijay stating therein that his
sister was married to accused Pinku @
Parmanand about 15 years ago and from
their wedlock five children were born. It is
also mentioned in the first information
report that the sister of the first informant
was being harassed continuasly by all six
named accused persons including the
present revisionist. Due to harassment
meeted out by the named accused persons
including the present revisionist, the sister
of the first informant, Silpy is stated to
have committed suicide on 29.11.2022 by
hanging herself. Upon conclusion of
investigation, a police report in the form of
charge sheet came to be submitted against
accused, Pinku @ Parmanand/husband of
the deceased and Shiv Bhagwan only. The
statements of first informant, Vijay, mother
of the deceased, Smt. Kiran and another
brother of deceased, Atul were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they
have stated that the accused, Shiv Bhagwan
and present revisionist also harassed the
victim/deceased and she was also assaulted
by
Shiv
Bhagwan
and
the
present
revisionist. Thereafter, on the basis of
aforesaid statements, vide impugned order
dated 24.02.2023, learned C.J.M. Sitapur
has took cognizance for the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. and summoned the
present revisionist also including the other
accused Pinku @ Parmanand and Shiv
Bhagwan.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that the learned trial Court
has committed error in issuing process to
the present revisionist against whom charge
sheet was not submitted before learned trial
Court, the impugned order is therefore,
patently illegal. His further submission is
that if the learned C.J.M. is found to be
entitled to issue process at this stage under
Section 190 Cr.P.C. against any person
against whom no charge sheet has been
filed,
then
in
such
eventuality,
the
provision contained under Section 319
Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory.

5. He has also submitted that as the
learned Magistrate is not empowered to
issue process to any person other than the
person against whom a charge sheet has
been laid by the police, therefore, such
order taking cognizance of the matter and
issuing process is hit by the provision
contained in Section 461 Cr.P.C which
declares such proceeding, an irregular
proceeding.

6.

To
buttress
his
aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the
revisionist has placed reliance upon the
judgments
rendered
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Prasad Shrikanht
Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra and
Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of
Police.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the prayer by submitting that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has
unfettered power to issue summon against
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any such person who has not been
mentioned as an accused in the charge
sheet or arraigned in the first information
report. To lend support to his aforesaid
submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nahar Singh v. State
of U.P.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid
overall facts and circumstances of this case
and upon perusal of the records, it
transpires that a first information report
bearing Case Crime No.0389/2022 came to be
lodged against six named accused persons
including the present revisionist by the first
informant,
Vijay.
Upon
conclusion
of
investigation, no charge sheet was submitted
against the present revisionist. The statements
of first informant, Vijay, mother of the
deceased, Smt. Kiran and another brother of
deceased, Atul were recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated that the
accused, Shiv Bhagwan and present revisionist
also harassed the victim/deceased and she was
also assaulted by Shiv Bhagwan and the
present revisionist. Thereafter, on the basis of
aforesaid statements, vide impugned order
dated 24.02.2023, learned C.J.M. Sitapur has
took cognizance for the offence under Section
306 I.P.C. and summoned the present
revisionist also including the other accused
Pinku @ Parmanand and Shiv Bhagwan.

9. Similar issue came to be considered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahar Singh (supra)
wherein it has been held that a Magistrate has
power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. to issue
summon against such person who has not been
mentioned as an accused in the charge sheet or
arraigned in the first information report.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nahar Singh (Supra) in para no.17
has held as under :-

"17.
As
regards
scope
of
jurisdiction of the Magistrate in a situation
of this nature, it was held by the
Constitution
Bench
in
Dharam
Pal
[Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3
SCC 306 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 159] : (SCC
p. 319, paras 35-36)

"35. In our view, the Magistrate
has a role to play while committing the
case to the Court of Session upon taking
cognizance on the police report submitted
before him under Section 173(2)CrPC. In
the event the Magistrate disagrees with the
police report, he has two choices. He may
act on the basis of a protest petition that
may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing
with the police report, issue process and
summon the accused. Thereafter, if on
being satisfied that a case had been made
out to proceed against the persons named
in Column 2 of the report, proceed to try
the said persons or if he was satisfied that a
case had been made out which was triable
by the Court of Session, he may commit the
case to the Court of Session to proceed
further in the matter.

36. This brings us to the third
question as to the procedure to be followed
by the Magistrate if he was satisfied that a
prima facie case had been made out to go
to trial despite the final report submitted by
the police. In such an event, if the
Magistrate decided to proceed against the
persons accused, he would have to proceed
on the basis of the police report itself and
either inquire into the matter or commit it
to the Court of Session if the same was
found to be triable by the Sessions Court.""

11. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal
vs. State of Haryana had affirmed its
earlier view expressed in a judgment
rendered in Kishun Singh v. State of
Bihar which dealt with same issue wherein
5 All. Yuvraj Naag Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
603
the Court had opined that it is the duty of
Magistrate while taking cognizance of an
offence, to go to the root of the matter by
identifying the offender. Once the Court
has done so, it is the duty of the Court to
take
action
against
such
persons
irrespective of the person being mentioned
in any police report.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab in para
no.111 has also held as under :-

"111.
Even
the
Constitution
Bench in Dharam Pal [Dharam Pal v. State
of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306 : (2014) 2
SCC (Cri) 159] has held that the Sessions
Court can also exercise its original
jurisdiction and summon a person as an
accused in case his name appears in
Column 2 of the charge-sheet, once the
case had been committed to it. It means
that a person whose name does not appear
even in the FIR or in the charge-sheet or
whose name appears in the FIR and not in
the main part of the charge-sheet but in
Column 2 and has not been summoned as
an accused in exercise of the powers under
Section 193CrPC can still be summoned by
the court, provided the court is satisfied
that the conditions provided in the said
statutory provisions stand fulfilled."

13. Adverting to the facts of this case,
it transpires that a first information report
bearing Case Crime No.0389/2022 came to
be lodged against six named accused
persons including the present revisionist by
the first informant, Vijay. Upon conclusion
of investigation, no charge sheet was
submitted against the present revisionist.
The statements of first informant, Vijay,
mother of the deceased, Smt. Kiran and
another brother of deceased, Atul were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
wherein they have stated that the accused,
Shiv Bhagwan and present revisionist also
harassed the victim/deceased and she was
also assaulted by Shiv Bhagwan and the
present revisionist. Thereafter, on the basis
of aforesaid statements, vide impugned
order dated 24.02.2023, learned C.J.M.
Sitapur has took cognizance for the offence
under Section 306 I.P.C. and summoned
the present revisionist also including the
other accused Pinku @ Parmanand and
Shiv Bhagwan, which cannot be said to be
illegal in view of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahar Singh
(supra), Dharam Pal (supra), Kishun
Singh (supra).

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Prasad Shrikanht Purohit (supra)
in para no.77 has held as under :-

"The said statement of law
reinforces
the
legal
position
that
cognizance is always of the offence and not
the offender and once the Magistrate
applies his judicial mind with reference to
the
commission
of
an
offence
the
cognizance is taken at that very moment."

15. In the case of Bhagwant Singh
(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that when the report forwarded by the
officer-in-charge of a police station to the
Magisgtrate under sub-section 2(i) of
Section 173 comes up for consideration by
the Magistrate, one of two different
situations may arise. The report may
conclude that an offence appears to have
been committed by a particular person or
persons and in such a case, the Magistrate
may do one of three things, (1) he may
accept the report and take cognizance of the
offence and issue process or (2) he may
disagree with the report and drop the
proceeding or (3) he may direct further
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation under sub-section (3) of
Section 156 and require the police to make
a further report. The report may on the
other hand state that, in the opinion of the
police, no offence appears to have been
committed and where such a report has
been made, the Magistrate again has an
option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he
may accept the report and drop the
proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the
report and taking the view that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding further,
take cognizance of the offence and issue
process or (3) he may direct further
investigation to be made by the police
under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

16. There cannot be any quarrel with
the aforesaid authoritative exposition of
law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasad
Shrikanht Purohit (supra) and Bhagwant
Singh (supra), however, in the humble
opinion of this Court the same are
distinguishable on facts of this case.

17. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned order dated
24.02.2023 warranting interference by this
Court. The instant criminal revision lacks
merit and the same deserves to be
dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the instant criminal
revision is dismissed.
----------

(2023) 5 ILRA 604
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Criminal Revision No. 968 of 2015

Dr. Arun Kumar Singhal ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Tarawati ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Shashi Kant Tripathi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section397 - Calling for
records to exercise powers of revision -
Revisional jurisdiction - Opposite party,
widow filed application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on
18.01.2011 against present revisionist -
Opposite party married with revisionist on
17.07.2007
-
Revisionist
contention
-
Opposite party had given 29.06.2006 as
wrong date of death of husband - In Parivar
Register, 29.09.2009 was mentioned -
Marriage with revisionist would be ab-initio
void, not maintainable - Due to inadvertence
of
counsel
for
revisionist,
the
death
certificate could not be produced before trial
court, hampered the case
- Claimed,
additional evidence in revision can be taken
- Held, power envisaged u/s 399 (1) Cr.P.C.
is analogous to provision of section 401 (1)
Cr.P.C., therefore, the trial court can take
additional evidence for examining regularity
of any proceedings, propriety of findings,
etc,
passed
by
subordinate
courts
-
Impugned
order
set
aside
-
Matter
transmitted back to court concerned for
passing fresh order. (Para 6, 7, 9, 10, 21,
23)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Vinod
Kumar
Vs
Mohrawati,
MANU/UP/0308/1990, (Para 4)

2. MANU/UP/3033/2014, (Para 6, 7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)