Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4473 (ALL)

Jalil Ahmad v. State Of U. P.

2026-04-01

Manoj Bajaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : MANOJ BAJAJ, J. 1.Petitioner-Complainant is aggrieved against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Banda in Session Trial No.341 of 2023, State Vs. Taufiq and others, arising out of Case Crime No.15 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Marka, district Banda, whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief leading to the revision petition are that the complainant gave a written complaint to the police wherein it is alleged that his daughter-Sifa was married on 12.05.2022 as per Muslim rites and rituals with Taufiq, son of Sarvar Ali and sufficient dowry was given by him, but Taufiq, his parents-Sarvar Ali and Safeena, his uncle-Kallu and sister- Chandani harassed his daughter and continuously demanded Rs.1 lac as well as a motor-cycle. On 15.01.2023 there was some altercation between the couple and he got this information on mobile phone, and his attempt to meet his daughter failed as the accused were adamant on their demand of dowry. On 26.01.2023 at about 1:10 p.m. the complainant talked to Taufiq on his mobile phone and his daughter was also online when she informed him to take her back, otherwise she would be killed by all the accused persons. The conversation went on for twenty minutes and finally after sometime Kallu informed the complainant that his daughter is no more who died of hanging. The complainant reached there and found that the feet of the dead-body were touching the ground, who in his complaint to police requested for necessary action against the accused persons. Broadly on these allegations F.I.R. was registered on 28.01.2023 against five persons, namely, Taufiq, Sarvar Ali, Safeena, Kallu and Chandani. 3. Thereafter, the investigation in the crime was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against three persons, namely, Taufiq-husband, Sarvar Ali- father-in-law, Safeena-Mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Kallu and Chandani were declared innocent. 4. After commencement of trial proceedings, the prosecution examined three witnesses, namely, Jalil Ahmad (PW-1), Barkat Ali (PW-2) and Shakun (PW-3), and thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for summoning Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused to face the trial, which has been dismissed through impugned order 06.11.2025. Hence this revision petition. 5. 4. After commencement of trial proceedings, the prosecution examined three witnesses, namely, Jalil Ahmad (PW-1), Barkat Ali (PW-2) and Shakun (PW-3), and thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for summoning Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused to face the trial, which has been dismissed through impugned order 06.11.2025. Hence this revision petition. 5. Sri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-petitioner has argued that Sifa, daughter of the complainant got married to Taufiq on 12.05.202, and she met her unnatural death on 26.01.2023 in her matrimonial home and from the very beginning the complainant had levelled allegations of demand of dowry against all five accused persons but during investigation, Chandani and Kallu were declared innocent. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) to point out that the allegations against Chandani also reveal her participation in commission of crime, therefore, exoneration of these two persons by police is unjustified. He referred to the testimony of PW-1 recorded during trial to point out that specific allegations were levelled by the complainant against all the accused persons regarding cruelty meted out to his daughter resulting in her death, therefore, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon these two persons as an additional accused, and the trial court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case carefully while rejecting the application. The reference is also made to the evidence/testimonies of PW-2-Barkat Ali and PW-3-Shakun to contend that these two witnesses also supported the stand of PW-1, despite that the trial court has proceeded to reject the application thereby causing miscarriage of justice to the complainant. He prays that the impugned order be set aside and opposite party nos.2 and 3 be summoned. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions, this Court finds that the initial version given by the complainant is recorded in the F.I.R. and it only narrates about the date of marriage and alleged cruelty meted out to his daughter who later met an unnatural death and the allegations are not specific much less against Kallu, cousin of Sarvar Ali, who as per F.I.R. only informed the complainant about demise of his daughter. Similarly the allegations against Chandani are vague and do not attribute any specific instance of maltreating his daughter. 7. Similarly the allegations against Chandani are vague and do not attribute any specific instance of maltreating his daughter. 7. Further a perusal of the deposition of the complainant recorded as PW-1 during trial would show that on 15.01.2023 when there was an altercation between the couple he in fact met his daughter, but only narrated about his inability to meet the alleged demand of dowry, and in the said statement no specific attribution is against Chandani and Kallu. Though in the version contained in the F.I.R., it is the stand of the complainant that despite his attempts to meet his daughter he was not allowed to meet her. 8. That apart, the deposition of the complainant is based on the alleged disclosure made by his daughter to his wife when she visited her parental home after marriage but this version is completely missing in the F.I.R. and the mother has not been examined as a prosecution witness. The entire evidence of PW-1 does not mention about the knowledge of the alleged crime to PW-2 and PW-3 much less their involvement in talking to the daughter of the complainant. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 does not at all stand at a better footing than the deposition of PW-1. 9. By now it is a well settled law that the power vested with the trial court to summon any person as an additional accused who has not been sent to face trial is extraordinary in nature and has to be invoked in cases where during trial strong evidence emerges to point out the involvement of some other person as well in commission of crime. During the course of the hearing it is fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that Kallu, son of Gulab Ali is cousin of Sarvar Ali and he was not residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant's daughter. 10. Thus, considering the material on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence on record is not enough for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and trial court has rightly proceeded to reject the application vide order dated 06.11.2025. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has given valid reasons in refusing to summon Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference i.e. to. exercise the revisional jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has given valid reasons in refusing to summon Chandani and Kallu as an additional accused and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference i.e. to. exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made in the order are only in respect of the adjudication relating to the impugned order dated 06.11.2025.