Allahabad High Court
Mamta Shukla And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 10 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4582 of 2019 Revisionist :- Mamta Shukla And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Umesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The present revision has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 16.11.2019, passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Room No.5, Kannauj in Session Trial No.264 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.787 of 2017, (State Vs. Sanjay & others), under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station & District Kannauj, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kannauj.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has also tried to point out certain infirmities in the evidence which has been made the basis to summon the accused-revisionists under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The factual controversies have been raised and certain submissions which are more in the nature of ultimate defence that the accused may finally take to show their innocence, have also been made. The plea that the accused- revisionists have been falsely implicated, has also been taken. Learned counsel for the revisionists have not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness which may persuade this Court to interfere in either of the impugned orders. There is no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case have been appreciated in right perspective. The relevant law also have been taken into consideration by the lower court. This Court also does not see any such element of perversity in either of the impugned orders. The evidence has been produced during the course of trial appears to have been sufficient to justify the summoning of the revisionists as additional accused. There does not appear to be any element of perversity in the impugned orders. As per law that has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court's in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC-92, though the standard of sufficiency of evidence which may justify the summoning of the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is on a different footing than the standard of sufficiency that would justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. But that does not go to mean that the standard to justify the summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be the same which is required to be employed at the time of final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of an accused. Considerations to summon an accused to face trial are different from the considerations which should ultimately vindicate the conviction of an accused. In the present matter in hand it cannot be said that the evidence as was available on record does not justify the summoning of the revisionists as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or that the ratio and the guidelines as have been provided by the Apex Court in its decision given in the case of Hardeep Singh's case (supra), have not been followed.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the revision has no merits and there is no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order. The prayer to quash the impugned order is therefore, refused.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-revisionists may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this revision has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this revision is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Anand Sri./-