Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 941 (ALL)

Sandeep Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-07-16

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Sri Digvijai Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge V/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Gonda in Session Trial No. 1150/2022 ( State Vs. Vijay Singh and others ) arising out of Case Crime No.0148/2022, under Sections 307 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34, 324 and r/w 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial and he has also sought quashing of the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 23.06.2020 against four persons, including the applicant, stating that because of a property dispute all the accused persons attacked the informant’s house on 23.06.2020, they abused and assaulted the informant with sticks and banka. 4. The medico legal examination report of the informant mentions two lacerated wounds on his head besides complain of pain on right shoulder, left wrist joint and right lower limb. The CT examination report of the informant mentions few hemorrhagic contusions and mildly displaced fracture of right parietal bone. 5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the FIR version. Some family members of the informant reiterated the FIR version but some independent witnesses stated that the applicant was not present at the time of the incident. 6. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 04.09.2020 against the other three accused persons only and he exonerated the applicant. 7. The trial Court has recorded statement of the informant/victim as PW-1 and he stated about involvement of the applicant along with other accused persons in assaulting him. PW-1 has been cross-examined but no such fact has come to light during his cross-examination as may belie the statement given in examination-in-chief. Even during cross- examination, PW-1 categorically stated that all the accused persons had beaten him up and he had suffered five injuries in the incident. PW-1 has been cross-examined but no such fact has come to light during his cross-examination as may belie the statement given in examination-in-chief. Even during cross- examination, PW-1 categorically stated that all the accused persons had beaten him up and he had suffered five injuries in the incident. He stated that two accused persons had assaulted him with sticks and two accused had assaulted him with farsa. 8. PW-2 (Reeta Singh) is daughter-in-law of the informant/victim and she stated that Vijay and Ankur had assaulted her father-in-law with Farsa and the applicant and co-accused Amit had assaulted him with sticks. She raised a hue & cry whereupon some persons came there, saved her father in-law and took him for treatment. 9. After examination of PW-1 and PW-2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.02.2024 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the trial Court. 10. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the trial Court should record a satisfaction that the material that has come on record is sufficient to give rise to more than prima facie satisfaction that the persons sought to be summoned is guilty of the offence. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab , (2009) 16 SCC 46 . 11. The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the FIR itself states about existence of a civil dispute between the parties. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit of the applicant as per which there is civil a dispute between the parties regarding which the S.D.M. Karnailganj, Gonda has passed an order dated 09.02.2024 in Case No.8896 of 2023 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 12. Without going into merit of the civil dispute, suffice it to say that mere existence of a civil dispute is not sufficient for quashing of an order summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the existence of the civil dispute in the present has categorically been stated to be the motive for commission of the offence. Without going into merit of the civil dispute, suffice it to say that mere existence of a civil dispute is not sufficient for quashing of an order summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the existence of the civil dispute in the present has categorically been stated to be the motive for commission of the offence. Therefore, the mere existence of a civil dispute between the parties would not give rise to a ground for quashing of the impugned order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after taking into consideration the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 which made out a case for summoning the applicant. 13. In Sarabjit Singh (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - “ 18. There is no gainsaying that the power under Section 319 of the Code is an extraordinary power which in terms of the decision of this Court in MCD [ (1983) 1 SCC 1 ] is required to be exercised sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against whom action has not been taken. The provision of Section 319 of the Code, on a plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case has been made out must appear to the court. Has the criterion laid down by this Court in MCD [ (1983) 1 SCC 1 ] been satisfied is the question? 19. Indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. 20. We may notice that in Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy , (2007) 4 SCC 773 this Court opined: “11. … Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in court.” 21. An order under Section 319 of the Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). The word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in court.” 21. An order under Section 319 of the Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. 22. The observation of this Court in MCD and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction.” 14. In the present case, both PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that the applicant and co-accused Amit Singh had assaulted the opposite party no.2 with sticks and the other two accused persons had assaulted him with farsa. The opposite party no. 2 had suffered two lacerated wounds on his head, besides complaint of pain in some other parts of the body. The trial Court has referred to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and has concluded that even in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, no such fact has come to light, as may raise a suspicion against involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. The trial Court has recorded satisfaction that there is ample evidence for recording more than a prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Nothing more is required to be done by the trial Court while deciding an application for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 15. The trial Court has recorded satisfaction that there is ample evidence for recording more than a prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Nothing more is required to be done by the trial Court while deciding an application for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 15. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial Court, which have been referred to above, are sufficient for drawing a reasonable satisfaction that the same may lead to conviction of the applicant. 16. The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 satisfies the test of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh (Supra). 17. The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that he has annexed a copy of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in an Application U/s 482 No. 4003 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) 18. Averments regarding the aforesaid application have been made in para-18 of the supplementary affidavit wherein it has been stated that in similar facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid judgment and order was passed quashing the summoning order and the aforesaid judgment and order completely applies to the present matter. In description of the deponent given in the supplementary affidavit, his qualification disclosed is merely literate. In the verification clause, paras 1 to 21 have been verified to be true on the basis of personal knowledge of the deponent who is merely literate. 19. Chapter IV of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952 deals with “Affidavits and Oath Commissioners”. Rule 8 of Chapter IV provides that “The affidavit shall contain no statement which is in the nature of an expression of opinion or argument” The averments made in para 18 of the supplementary affidavit are in the nature of arguments, which certainly is in violation of Rule 8 aforesaid. 20. Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES provides that “Except on interlocutory applications, an affidavit shall be confined to such fact as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove.” 21. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is certainly not an interlocutory application and the supplementary affidavit filed in the present case should have been confined to facts within the personal knowledge of the deponents of the respective affidavits. 22. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is certainly not an interlocutory application and the supplementary affidavit filed in the present case should have been confined to facts within the personal knowledge of the deponents of the respective affidavits. 22. In Mohan Lal Rathi v. Union of India , 2023 SCC OnLine All 4667 , this Court has observed that:- “21. Although the above referred Rules are being followed generally, in some cases a new emerging practice has been observed where Advocates refer to numerous case-laws in the affidavits and counter affidavits, although the same is prohibited in the High Court Rules. The case-laws should not be incorporated in the affidavits, but those should be placed by the learned Counsel while advancing submissions, with reference to the specific passage containing the ratio decidendi of the judgment. The practice of mentioning case-laws in the affidavits filed before the Courts, and that too in a casual manner without even mentioning the citation or other complete particulars such as the name of the Court, case number and date of decision, and the relevant paragraph containing the ratio decidenei of the judgment results in wastage of the Court’s time. Such a practice is deprecated and it should stop.” 23. The applicant should not have annexed a copy of the precedent on which he is relying, with the supplementary affidavit and it ought to have been supplied during submissions. Moreover, the verification clause of the affidavit ought to have been prepared carefully and verification of the averments made regarding the present case being covered by a precedent of this Court made on the basis of personal knowledge of a merely literate deponent indicates that the supplementary affidavit has been drafted in a casual manner. Swearing or affirmation of an affidavit is not an empty formality and the oath or solemn affirmation should not be taken lightly, more particularly in proceedings which are decided on the basis of affidavits only, without taking any other evidence. 24. Now I proceed to examine to applicability of the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine All 4715 . 24. Now I proceed to examine to applicability of the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine All 4715 . In this case, the coordinate bench has referred to the decisions in the cases of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan , (2017) 7 SCC 706 and has set aside the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the ground that:- “it emerges from the order itself that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, has found prima-facie, a case against the applicant and there is no such finding or the degree of satisfaction recorded that there are much stronger case available against the applicant and as such, this court finds that the learned trial court has ignored the law enunciated by the Apex Court.” 25. In the present case, the trial Court has not recorded that merely a prima facie case is made out against the applicant, rather it has been recorded that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated about involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence and even in the cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2, no such fact has come to light, as may raise a suspicion against the applicant’s involvement in commission of the offence. The trial Court has recorded satisfaction that there is ample evidence for recording more than a prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Nothing more is required to be done by the trial Court while deciding an application for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no such defect in the impugned order, as had given a rise of interference in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh (Supra) and the aforesaid judgment annexed with the supplementary affidavit would not apply to the facts of the present case, as it is a well settled principle of the law of precedents that the ratio laid down in a precedent should be understood and applied keeping in view the factual background of the case and a little difference in facts the case would make the precedent inapplicable. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 27. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 27. The application lacks merit and is dismissed.