KAILASH NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. An application under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed to summon the applicant. The applicant was summoned vide order dated 2.12.1996 to face the trial along with other accused in S.T. No. 228 of 1995 State v. Rampal Agnihotri and others, under sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. arising out of case Crime No. 107 of 1994 P.S. Sheorajpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the entire family was implicated in the present case. However after investigation no charge-sheet was filed against the applicant. The charges were framed and the case was committed for trial to the Court of Session. After statement of informant Ramjeewan, father of the deceased the applicant was summoned by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in the present case without giving reason and without recording satisfaction with regard to the possibility of conviction of the applicant. Neither the evidence nor the reason has been mentioned in the order. Merely mentioning that prima facie offence was disclosed, the applicant was summoned which is against the provision of section 319 Cr.P.C. and against the judgment of Hon. Apex Court as well as of this Court.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for opposite party-complainant have opposed the version of the applicant and submitted that since there was sufficient evidence and material on record and the name of the applicant was clearly mentioned in the statement of Ramjeewan, informant along with other co-accused, hence the Court below has not committed any illegality in the impugned order, therefore the present application is liable to be rejected.