The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to summon the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law of a deceased woman as additional accused in a dowry death case. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), ruling that the power to summon additional accused is “extraordinary” and mandates evidence establishing “more than a prima facie case.”
Case Background
The case stems from F.I.R. Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, registered at Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi. The informant, Man Singh, alleged that his daughter, Radhika, was married to Manoj about five years prior to the incident. According to the complaint, Manoj, along with his father Bhaiya Lal, his mother, and his brother Ashok Kumar, harassed Radhika for additional dowry, specifically demanding a buffalo and a golden ring. The informant also alleged that Manoj had illicit relations with his sister-in-law, Sunita.
On January 7, 2020, Radhika was found dead, allegedly hanged by her husband and in-laws. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Following the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet only against the husband, Manoj, finding no role attributable to the other family members. During the trial, statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 (Man Singh) and PW-2 (Indresh Singh) were recorded. Based on their testimonies, the revisionist filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite parties (the in-laws) to face trial. The Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi, rejected this application on November 8, 2024, leading to the present revision.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist argued that the deceased was killed by her husband and in-laws due to the non-fulfillment of dowry demands. It was submitted that during the trial, PW-1 and PW-2 supported the prosecution version and implicated the opposite parties. The counsel contended that a prima facie case was made out against the opposite parties and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Asim Akhtar Vs. The State of West Bengal (2024) to argue that cross-examination is not a mandatory prerequisite for deciding a Section 319 application.
In response, counsel for the opposite parties and the learned A.G.A. supported the trial court’s order. They argued that the marriage was simple and devoid of dowry demands. It was submitted that the opposite parties lived separately from the deceased and her husband, a fact corroborated by independent witnesses during the investigation. The defense pointed out that in cross-examination, PW-1 and PW-2 admitted that the specific demand for the buffalo and ring was made by the husband, Manoj. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Chawan Prakash, delivering the judgment, analyzed the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that the trial court can summon a person not named as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense.
Citing the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the Court clarified that the term “evidence” in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. refers strictly to evidence recorded during the trial. The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Omi v. State of M.P. (2025) and Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. (2025), observing:
“Trial court can exercise power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation.”
The Court underscored the stringent standard required to invoke this provision, stating:
“The law with regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima-facie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient.”
Applying these legal principles, the Court noted that the trial court had examined the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. It observed that PW-1, in cross-examination, specifically stated that the demand for the buffalo and golden ring was made by Manoj. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (PW-5) had deposed that Manoj lived separately with his wife. The Court distinguished the Asim Akhtar case cited by the revisionist, noting that the facts were different.
Verdict
Finding that the trial court’s order was based on proper reasoning and that the material on record did not meet the “more than prima facie” threshold, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Man Singh Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 6573 of 2024
- Coram: Justice Chawan Prakash
- Counsel for Revisionist: Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Dev Raj Singh, G.A.
