HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8737 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the record. 3. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash /set-aside the Impugned Order Dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District & Session Judge/F.T.C., Unnao in S.T.No.557/2022 arising out in Case Crime No.26/2022, U/S-302, 328 & 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District-Unnao in case of State .Vs. Tejkali & Others, whereby allowed an Application 23Ka U/S-319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant/opp.party no.2, and summoned to the applicant/petitioner Neha as an accused, as containted in Annexure No.1 to this Application / Petition." 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of concocted fact(s), the FIR of case in question was lodged without naming any accused persons. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the complainant and other witnesses developed a case that the deceased was in affair with the applicant, which was not accepted to her mother as well as maternal uncle, as a result, he was called and poison Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Neha .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) was administered and thereafter they brought him to the door of complainant and after leaving him, they left. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that after detailed investigation on the basis of statement(s) recorded under Section 161 CrPC of independent villagers, the name of the applicant was dropped and chargesheet was submitted by Investigating Officer against the mother of the applicant as well as the maternal uncle of applicant namely, Tejkali and Anil under Section 302, 328, 120-B and trial was proceeded. Thereafter, again statement(s) of witnesses namely, Ravikant, Shivbhagwan and Shrikrishna were recorded. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the statement of aforesaid witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which was delayed by the Investigating Officer and thereafter the name of applicant was dropped. In the deposition of aforesaid witnesses by the trial court, they again reiterated the version, which was given to the Investigating Officer and thereafter application under Section 319 CrPC was filed by the prosecution, which was allowed in most mechanical manner. He further submitted that in case, the name of accused persons told to the informant, then why this fact was not mentioned in the application, which was given for lodging of the FIR. He next submitted that the applicant was wrongly summoned by the learned trial court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of application and submitted that P.W. 2-Shivbhagwan has categorically deposed before the trial court that Kamlakant was brought by applicant and other accused persons at his door and thereafter after leaving him, them they went back. He further submitted that P.W. 1 also stated that he saw Tejkali, and Anil Kumar and applicant were going back, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by learned court below by summoning the applicant. 8. Considering the contents of the petition as well as the impugned order and deposition of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and the contents of the application filed under Section 319 CrPC, it appears, prima facie, that aforesaid witnesses have categorically supported the prosecution case, A482 No. 8737 of 2025 2 therefore, there was sufficient material for summoning the applicant, accordingly, the present petition is misconceived. The same is hereby dismissed. 9. In case, the applicant appears before the learned court below and applies for bail, then, the same shall be decided considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021) and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941. 10. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. November 10, 2025 Raj A482 No. 8737 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench