Surendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5834 of 2025
Surendra Pal Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jai Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. The office has submitted a report dated 02.11.2026 that the original order-
sheet of the instant revision is not traceable and, therefore, the office has
provided a duplicate order-sheet which shall now be treated as original
order-sheet.
2. Heard Sri Jai Raj, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh
Kumar Rao, the learned AGA for the State.
3. By means of the instant revision, the revisionist has challenged the
validity of a judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate Agra in Criminal Case No.9376 of 2021 arising out of Case
Crime No.364A of 2007 under Sections 323, 325 IPC registered at Police
Station- Sikandra, District- Agra whereby an application filed by the
revisionist under Section 319 CrPC was rejected.
4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on
11.04.2007 against (1) Netrapal Singh, (2) Neeraj, son of Netrapal Singh, (3)
Jitendra, son of Netrapal Singh, and (4) Asha, son of Netrapal Singh
(daughter-in-law of the complainant) alleging that when the complainant
reached his home at about 11:00 AM on 11.04.2007, he found the doors of
the house were open. Upon entering the house, he saw his daughter-in-law
Asha, her two brothers Neeraj and Jitendra, her father Netrapal Singh and 5-
6 unknown persons sitting there carrying sticks, iron bars, guns and country-
made pistols. Neeraj fired a gunshot with the intention of killing him but he
escaped unhurt. The other accused persons pushed him down on the ground,
started hitting him with sticks, kicks, and fists, and dragged him outside his

CRLR No. 5834 of 2025
2
house. They threatened that the house belonged to them and the complainant
or his family members should not enter the house. He stated that a suit for
divorce of his son is pending in the court and his daughter-in-law and her
family members are harassing him.
5. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet
against the named accused, against Netrapal Singh, Neeraj and Asha only as
involvement of Jitendra and 5-6 unknown persons could not be established
during investigation.
6. After the trial reached the stage of recording statement under Section 313
CrPC, the revisionist filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to
summon one of the named accused persons Jitendra as well as two unknown
persons who were later identified as Mukesh son of Pratap Singh and
Satyendra Kumar son of Padam Singh.
7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra rejected the application by means of
an order dated 08.11.2023 on the ground that the application had been filed
on the basis of statement of PW-1, which was recorded on 13.12.2018 and
the application under Section 319 CrPC was filed after 5 years when the trial
had reached the stage of recording a statement under Section 313 CrPC. The
trial court rejected the application merely on the ground of delay and
observed that the trial was 16 years old.
8. The revisionist challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No.758
of 2023, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated
08.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Agra on the ground that the Magistrate had passed the order dated
08.11.2023 without application of mind to the evidence available on record
and remanded the matter for being decided afresh.
9. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra thereafter passed an order dated
30.11.2024 allowing the application under Section 319 CrPC and
summoning Satyendra Kumar and Mukesh to face trial for the offences
under Sections 323, 325 IPC.
10. The summoned persons Mukesh Singh, Satyendra Kumar, and Jitendra
Singh challenged the order dated 08.11.2023 by filing Criminal Revision
No.1151 of 2024, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order
dated 21.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special

CRLR No. 5834 of 2025
3
Judge POCSO Act, Court No.13, Agra, in which the revisional court
observed that the summoned accused Jitendra is brother of the respondents'
daughter-in-law.
11. The investigating officer had found his presence in Primary School, Etah
between 12:00 noon to 6:45 p.m. whereas the incident took place at 11:00
a.m. in Agra and, therefore, presence of Jitendra at the time of the incident
was not possible.
12. Satyendra and Mukesh are said to be present on the spot of the incident
but their mere presence does not make out a case for their trial as there is no
allegation of their active participation in commission of the offence.
13. The trial court held that from the evidence available on record, presence
of Jitendra on the spot of the incident is doubtful and Mukesh and Satyendra
have not played any role in the incident and therefore the trial court has
wrongly summoned them to face the trial. The revisional court again
remanded the matter for being decided afresh.
14. After remand, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned
order dated 08.09.2025 rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC.
The trial court has recorded in the impugned order that although one of the
accused persons Asha is the daughter-in-law of the complainant-revisionist
and other accused persons are her family members and relatives and the
revisionist admitted in his cross-examination that he recognizes Satyendra
Kumar and Mukesh. Revisionist and other accused persons are her family
members and relatives and the revisionist admitted in his cross-examination
that he recognizes Satyendra Kumar and Mukesh. Although he alleged that
the offence was committed inside his house by Netrapal Singh, Neeraj,
Jitendra, Asha and 5-6 unknown persons and he did not mention the names
of Satyendra Kumar and Mukesh who were not unknown to him rather they
were well known to him.
15. It cannot be believed that although the complainant-revisionist
recognized Mukesh and Satyendra who had allegedly committed the offence
inside the house of the complainant-revisionist, yet the complainant-
revisionist did not mention their names and he mentioned them as unknown
persons.
16. Regarding Jitendra, the investigating officer had found his presence in a

CRLR No. 5834 of 2025
4
Primary School at Etah.
17. The trial court also took into consideration the fact that the revisionist
has tried to include more relatives of his daughter-in-law as accused persons.
The trial court also took into consideration the fact that that Satyendra is
cousin of the complainant's daughter-in-law, the revisionist had mentioned
his name as prosecution witnesses but he did not support the prosecution
case and turned hostile and thereafter the revisionist has tried to implicate
him as an accused in the case. The trial court held that there is a matrimonial
dispute already pending and it appears that the revisionist is trying to
implicate some more relatives of his daughter-in-law to settle his scores and
it amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
18. The trial court relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of ; AIR 2014 SCC Criminal 561,
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
wherein it has been held that :-
"Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an
extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in
those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge
is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court
that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner. "
19. The trial court found that there was no good ground to summon Mukesh,
Satyendra and Jitendra to face the trial and rejected the application.
20. The revisionist had sought information under the Right to Information
Act regarding the attendance register of the Primary School in District Etah
but he was given information on 01.08.2019 that the attendance register of
teachers for the period before 01.09.2007 was not available. This
information was sought by the revisionist after 12 years after the incident.
21. Non-availability of attendance register, 12 years after the incident, does
not imply that when the investigating officer had made the investigation
promptly after the incident, the attendance register was not available at that
time also. Therefore, the non-availability of attendance register of the year

CRLR No. 5834 of 2025
5
2007, after 12 years, does not make out a ground to doubt the information
collected by the investigating officer that on the date of the incident the
accused Jitendra Kumar was present in the primary school at Etah and he
was not present at the place of the incident in District Agra.
22. The learned counsel for the revisionist raised some more grounds for
adjudication whereof the court requested him to place the application under
Section 319 CrPC before the Court.
23. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has not
annexed a copy of the application under Section 319 CrPC with the memo of
revision.
24. The court is observing a practice in this Court where the learned counsel
do not annex copies of applications on which the impugned orders are
passed. It creates hurdles in ascertaining as to what grounds were raised
before the trial court.
25. Regarding Satyendra Kumar and Mukesh, the learned counsel for the
revisionist has submitted that the prosecution witnesses have stated about
their active participation in commission of the offence.
26. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has
suffered eight injuries in the incident and presence of Satyendra Kumar and
Mukesh on the spot is established. Therefore, a case for their summoning is
made out.
27. The trial court has rightly held that the mere presence of persons against
whom there is absolutely no allegation of commission of any overt act which
may amount to commission of any offence, would not justify their
summoning under Section 319 CrPC, more particularly when the persons are
admittedly well known to the revisionist-complainant yet in the FIR the
revisionist-complainant had not mentioned their names and he had
mentioned 5-6 unknown persons. The revisionist cannot be permitted to
summon his relatives to settle personal scores in the name of unknown
persons implicated in the FIR.
28. The facts and circumstances of the case and reasons recorded in the
impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Agra are sound reasons which do not suffer from any error or illegality.

CRLR No. 5834 of 2025
6
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no error or illegality in the
impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra
in Criminal Case No.9376 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.364A of
2007 under Sections 323, 325 IPC registered at Police Station- Sikandra,
District- Agra, rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC filed by the
revisionist.
30. The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed .
November 3, 2026
-Amit K-
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Whether the order is speaking :- Yes
Whether the order is reportable :- No
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad