Lucknow, August 4, 2022: Quashing an order of the Revisional Court, the Allahabad High Court has opined that the while summoning a person as additional accused, the Trial Court must record its satisfaction of more than prima facie case against a person who is being summoned as additional accused.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the present petition instituted by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and opined, “ It is a well settled law that for summoning a person as additional accused, there must be evidence which should be cogent and credible.”
The Court was of the view that the Order of the Revisional Court did not throw light as to what was the material considered by it to record satisfaction of more than prima facie case against the petitioners for summoning them as additional accused to face trial.
In this matter, the first prosecution witness was examined before the Court, in which she said that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and the petitioners, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Geeta Dwivedi, were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and they used to torture her for dowry demand. The Trial Court through its order observed that the witness did not say that the petitioners were living in the same house and also did not mention what dowry item was being demanded by the accused.
The Trial Court considered the evidence available on record and found that the investigating officer had rightly concluded that there was no cogent and credible evidence available against the petitioners to file a charge-sheet against them. Thus, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution for summoning the petitioners and Ms.Neelam Shukla as additional accused was rejected. However, the Revisional Court observed that the order passed by the Trial Court was unsustainable and allowed the revision.
The Bench observed that the material considered by it to record satisfaction of more than prima facie case against the petitioners for summoning them as additional accused to face trial whereas the Trial Court in its order dated July 17, 2000 found that there was no cogent and credible evidence available against the petitioners to summon them as additional accused and only one sentence was stated by the first prosecution witness that the petitioners also used to demand dowry and harass the victim.
Thus, this Court was of the view that the approach of the Revisional Court was unsustainable and not in accordance with law. In light of the observations stated above, the petition was allowed.