Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8537 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Lal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Virendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the revisionist against order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Court No.2, Fatehpur ( hereinafter referred as ‘trial court’) in S.T. No. 1084 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120B, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Fathepur. 3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the prosecution filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the proposed accused/(opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in this revision) to face trial along with other accused already facing trial. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist lodged an FIR against the named accused with the allegations that his daughter Sarika (Astha) was married to accused Raghvendra Singh @ Prince on 22.02.2023. It was alleged that Raghvendra Singh had a joint family and in the invitation card the names of his uncle Tej Bahadur Singh @ Ram Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav, Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manvendra Singh, Neeja Srivastava Yogendra Pal Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Bahadur Singh and aunt Smt. Vijayshri were shown as the parents of Raghvendra Singh and when asked, he said that he regards them as his parents. It is also alleged in the FIR, that after marriage his daughter was harassed and tortured for want of dowry by the named accused. His daughter informed him on phone about the torture and lastly, on 05.06.2023, she made a phone call to her sister to send her father, as she had been administered some pungent substance by the named accused. His daughter was taken to Sadar Hospital, Fatehpur, from where she was referred to Kanpur, however, on the way she died. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that P.W.1, Yogendra Pal Singh and P.W.2 Diksha Singh have supported the prosecution case, in their statement recorded before the court and from the evidence on record, the involvement of the proposed accused Tej Bahadur Singh @ Ram bahadur Singh and Smt. Vijayshri, in the alleged offence is made out. It is further submitted that in view of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the court shall presume about the dowry death, if the woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry, soon before her death. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that even suicidal or homicidal death is covered under Section 304-B IPC. It is next contended that the Trial Court has not recorded any finding to the effect that the proposed accused were present at the time and place of occurrence and the packets of sulfas were recovered from the store room and from a part of the house, which was in occupation of the proposed accused and also co-accused Raghvendra Singh @ Prince. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer has wrongly expunged the name of the proposed accused from the charge-sheet without any sufficient evidence. The Trial Court has failed to consider all these aspects, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another Vs. State of M.P., (2025) 133 ACC 304, wherein it has been held that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., even those persons who are named in the FIR, but not implicated in the charge-sheet, can be summoned to face trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused. He has also relied CRLR No. 8537 of 2025 2 upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Baran Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2025) 133 ACC 327, where it has been held that when the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused, it become obligatory for the Authority to exercise the power provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others, 135 ACC 921, has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, wherein it has been held that while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the inconsistencies in the overall testimony of the witnesses is not very material, as it is a matter of trial and not within the court’s scope at the time of considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that there was no evidence against them and they were not involved in the said offence. The Investigating Officer has rightly expunged their names from the charge-sheet. From the statement before the court also, there is no material and cogent evidence, which is sufficient to summon them, therefore, this revision has no force and it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under section 319 Cr.P.C. To understand the controversy involved in the case, it would be apt to know what Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides. Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under: “Section 319(1). Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of the offence: (1)Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.” 10. A perusal of the above provision shows that during the course of enquiry or trial, from the evidence, if it appears that any person, other than the present accused, has committed any offence, then the Court may CRLR No. 8537 of 2025 3 proceed against him and summon him to appear and be tried together with other accused. 11. In Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such provision is meant to achieve the objective that real culprit should not be get away unpunished and the above power can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage before conclusion of trial. It is also held that 'evidence' herein means material that is brought before the Court during trial and insofar as material/evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, at the stage of enquiry, is concerned, it can be utilized for corroboration and to support evidence recorded by court to invoke power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also held that it is a discretionary power given to the court and is also an extraordinary one, so the same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of case so warrant. With regard to degree of satisfaction, it was held that it is more than degree, which is warranted at the time of framing of charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet has been filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from evidence led before Court, that such power should be exercised. It is also held that the Trial Court is also duty bound to look into the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation to form its prima facie opinion and to see as to whether much stronger evidence than mere complicity of the proposed accused has come on record. 12. In Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2025 Livelaw (Supreme Court) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed based on alibi plea presented by the proposed accused. The threshold for summoning an additional accused is the existence of prima facie evidence indicating involvement in the offence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi is a matter of evidence, to be established during trial, not at the stage of summoning. 13. In view of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and upon a perusal of impugned order as well as the above legal position, if we look into the present case, then the first contention on behalf of the CRLR No. 8537 of 2025 4 revisionist is that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law, because the Trial Court has decided the application upon wrong assumption that the proposed accused could be summoned on the basis of evidence, only when the evidence is such that it would result in conviction. It is also submitted that the above view of the Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, and also in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh (supra); Mohammad Kaleem (supra) and Harjinder Singh (supra). 14. In the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power conferred by Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one and is to be exercised sparingly. It has also been held that the evidence to be considered for summoning of proposed accused must be more than a prima facie case, but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to conduct a detailed adjudication of guilt at this stage. In Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of U.P., (2025) SCC OnLine 2639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scrutiny under Section 319 Cr.P.C., should not become a pre-trial. The Court must avoid causal addition of accused and they should also avoid a full scale assessment of contradiction, corroboration and plausibility that is exclusively reserved for final adjudication after conclusion of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2168 of 2019], decided on July 23, 2019 has observed that the standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused. 15. In view of the above legal position, the law with regard to summoning of an accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. is that at this stage, the Court is not required to examine and evaluate the evidence thoroughly, as it would amount to a mini trial and the court is only required to see whether from the evidence, there is sufficient material, which is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing of charge and less than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, as is required to be examined at the time of conclusion of trial. CRLR No. 8537 of 2025 5 16. In the present case, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order by examining the evidence with the objective that whether from the evidence, the proposed accused could be convicted. The above view is contrary to the spirit of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Trial Court has not applied the law correctly, while deciding the above application. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. In view of the above, this revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 is set aside. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to decide the above application, which was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. September 9, 2026 Subham CRLR No. 8537 of 2025 6 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad