Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114897 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21114 of 2025 Applicant :- Guru Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shahsi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing the impugned order dated 24-02-2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, in S.T. No. 384 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 520 of 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.10.2017 by the opposite party no.2 (wife of the deceased), alleging that the applicant, along with co- accused Rishikant, assaulted and murdered her husband. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet only against Rishikant, finding no credible evidence against the present applicant. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 (informant), PW-2 (son of the deceased), and PW-3 (brother-in-law of the deceased). Subsequently, on 04.05.2022, the informant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the applicant as an accused, which was rejected by the Trial Court on 13.05.2024. Thereafter, a second application was filed by the District Government Counsel (Criminal) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 05.09.2024, alleging fresh evidence against the applicant, and the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge vide order dater 24-02-205 allowed the application and summoned the applicant for trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which is impugned herein. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present prosecution is a sheer abuse of the process of law and a result of personal vendetta. It is argued that the applicant was not named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation, and most material witnesses did not attribute any role to him. It is further contended that the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was already rejected by the Trial Court, and the second application has been filed with mala fide intent, without there being any fresh or cogent evidence against the applicant to justify summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the testimony of PW-1 is inconsistent and unreliable to form a basis for summoning the applicant. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that during the course of trial, PW-1 has clearly named the present applicant and specifically stated that he was present at the scene of occurrence and actively participated in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rightly moved by the District Government Counsel in light of the direct and specific evidence which came during the trial. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is a detailed and reasoned order passed after application of judicial mind and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties and perusal of the record, it is evident that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence that came during the trial, particularly the specific and incriminating testimony of PW-1 naming the applicant. The Court is satisfied that the Trial Court had sufficient material before it to summon the applicant as an additional accused. It is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised even against a person not charge-sheeted, if credible evidence emerges during trial. The impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error or arbitrariness. Furthermore, in view of the settled legal position that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, no interference is called for in the present matter. 7. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad