Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Ramnarayan Ram Daroga And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025

It serves as a reminder that mere naming in testimony does not suffice to summon a person under Section 319. The trial court must assess whether the evidence demonstrates active involvement that justifies a full trial.

Allahabad High Court·2 October 2025
Ramnarayan Ram Daroga And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

2 October 2025

Judges

Justice Sameer Jain

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The revisionists and six others were accused of assaulting the wife and sons of Opposite Party No. 2.

  • The FIR was not immediately registered. It was filed two months after the incident via a Section 156(3) CrPC application, which itself was filed one month after the alleged incident.

  • During investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find evidence against the revisionists and did not charge-sheet them.

  • During the trial, three prosecution witnesses (PWs) testified, including Opposite Party No. 2 and two injured witnesses (PWs 2 and 3).

  • Relying on these statements, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, summoned the revisionists under Section 319 CrPC.

  • The revisionists challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the trial court failed to evaluate whether the evidence was strong enough (i.e., more than prima facie) and relied blindly on the witness statements.

Issues

  1. Can a trial court summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC based solely on evidence recorded during trial?

  2. Is it permissible for the trial court to rely on the investigation material or case diary while invoking Section 319 CrPC?

  3. Did the trial court apply the correct legal standard ("more than prima facie") before summoning the revisionists?

  4. Whether the trial court failed to consider delay in FIR, quality of testimony, and sufficiency of evidence while passing the summoning order?

Held

  • The trial court's power under Section 319 CrPC is limited to the evidence recorded during trial and cannot be based on investigative material.

  • The standard for summoning under Section 319 is "more than prima facie", which must be explicitly recorded by the trial court before summoning any additional accused.

  • The power must be exercised judiciously, not mechanically, and only when the evidence truly warrants involvement of the additional accused.

  • The impugned order summoning the revisionists was set aside due to non-application of mind and improper reliance on witness statements.

Analysis

  • This judgment reinforces judicial discipline in using Section 319 CrPC, which is frequently misapplied by trial courts.

  • The Allahabad High Court aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings including:

    • Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 2025

    • Shiv Baran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

  • It serves as a reminder that mere naming in testimony does not suffice to summon a person under Section 319. The trial court must assess whether the evidence demonstrates active involvement that justifies a full trial.

  • The ruling also highlights the need for judicial scrutiny where FIRs are delayed and possibly motivated.