VIKAS RATHI versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 01-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
VIKAS RATHI
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2023)
MARCH 01, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 319 – Summoning of
additional accused – Murder of a person working in the appellant’s
firm – Complaint by the brother of the deceased – FIR registered
against unknown persons – However, after two months, complaint
by the wife of the deceased against the appellant – Appellant listed
as a prosecution witness – Application u/s. 319 by the complainant
to summon the appellant as accused – Dismissed by the trial court –
High Court quashed the order passed by trial court and remanded
the matter – On appeal, held: On consideration of the evidence
already on record produced by the prosecution, it does not go beyond
suspicion – There was no eye-witness to the occurrence – Material
on record was not sufficient for summoning of an additional accused
in exercise of power u/s. 319 to establish complicity of the appellant
in the crime – Also the charged accused have been acquitted –
Furthermore, remand in such a matter would only result in
prolonging the litigation – High Court only recorded that reasons
assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application were not
sufficient – To avoid delay, the proper exercise of power by the
High Court would have been to consider the material and opine as
to whether a case was made out for summoning of additional
accused – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside –
Application for summoning the appellant as an additional accused
dismissed.
Hardeep Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 – relied on.
Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007) 14 SCC 544 : [2007]
4 SCR 1023; Sagar v. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022) 6
SCC 389; Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2008)
14 SCC 51 : [2008] 3 SCR 702 – referred to.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 6
6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
Case Law Reference
[2007] 4 SCR 1023
referred to
Para 5
(2022) 6 SCC 389
referred to
Para 5
[2008] 3 SCR 702
referred to
Para 5
[2014] 2 SCR 1
relied on
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
644 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLR No. 1564 of 2017.
N. K. Mody, Sr. Adv., Sarvam Ritam Khare, Ms. Meena Sehrawat,
Prabuddha Singh Gour, Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Birendra Bikram, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Raj Singh Rana, Kamal Kumar Pandey,
Pankaj Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, S. C. Tripathi, Mrs. Pragya
Verma, Shailja Kant Dubey, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The Order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Allahabad High
Court is under challenge before this Court. By the aforesaid order,
Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the respondent No.2 challenging
the order dated 15.03.2017 whereby the application filed under Section
319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present appellant, was dismissed.
2. The High Court, vide impugned order had quashed the Order
dated 15.03.2017 and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for
fresh examination.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
established his business of manufacture of tools in the year 2003. A
complaint was filed by respondent no.2 regarding murder of his brother
Bachchu Prasad. It was mentioned therein that he used to work in the
appellant’s firm. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.
480/2013 was registered against unknown persons. Nearly two months
after the complaint, wife of the deceased gave a complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad making false allegations against
VIKAS RATHI v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
the appellant. The appellant was given notices by the Investigating Officer.
Entire information sought was furnished by him. During investigation,
the police found an eye witness namely Rajesh Kumar to the alleged
murder whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid fact was concealed by the
complainant while making complaint against the appellant. After
completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against two
accused persons namely Pannelal @ Panna Lal and Ombeer Singh.
The appellant was listed as a prosecution witness. During trial, statements
of various witnesses were recorded. Even the appellant was examined
a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.