(Sandeep Mehta and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.)
Sunil Yadav ______________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
State of U.P. and Another ________________________ Respondent(s).
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1617 of 2026, decided on September 21, 2026
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Sandeep Mehta, J.:—
1. Heard.
2. The instant special leave petition is directed against the order dated 17th December, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 7363 of 2025.
3. An FIR bearing Crime No. 06 of 2021 was lodged by the complainant Jitendra Yadav at P.S. GRP Jaunpur, alleging, inter alia, that Sunil Yadav (petitioner herein), Rakesh Yadav, Lal Pratap Yadav, the present Block Pramukh and some unknown persons bore enmity towards the informant’s brother Bala Lakhander Yadav alias Bala Yadav who was a Sabhasad and was also involved in the business of plotting of land. It was alleged that they hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Bala Lakhander Yadav alias Bala Yadav who had been extended threats a few days prior to the incident.
4. It was further alleged in the FIR that Bala Lakhander Yadav alias Bala Yadav was murdered by the named accused persons and some others in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.
5. Pursuant to investigation, the investigating agency filed a chargesheet against Om Chandra Gupta alias Pawan, Ritesh Singh, Jaideep Gaykawad and Umesh Gaur, under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioner herein were not charge-sheeted.
6. At the trial, statements of four witnesses, namely, Jitendra Yadav (the informant PW-1), Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (PW-2), Ashish Yadav (PW-3) and Phool Chandra (PW-4), were recorded whereafter an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was moved which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 16th October, 2025. The trial Court directed the summoning of the petitioner and the other nonchargesheeted accused persons as additional accused to stand trial with the charge-sheeted accused persons.
7. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by preferring a revision which has been rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide order dated 17th December, 2025 which is subject matter of challenge in this special leave petition.
8. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced a fervent argument that the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, did not find the petitioner involved in the offence and submitted a negative report. All the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4), based on whose testimony the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused, made wholesome improvements from their earlier version recorded under Section 161 CrPC while naming the petitioner as a particeps criminis.
9. It was submitted that where order under Section 319 CrPC has been passed after the witnesses have been cross-examined, it is an obligation upon the Court to consider the import of the facts elicited in the cross-examination and a bald reliance on the version of the witness in the examination-in-chief is not sufficient. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan &2.
10. Per contra, Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the facts of the case at hand are completely distinguishable from those prevailing in the case of Hetram @ Babli (supra). It was submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR, the investigating agency conducted the investigation in a partisan manner and exonerated the petitioner despite there being sufficient evidence warranting his prosecution. They urged that in the present case, the trial Court has passed the order summoning the petitioner and the co-accused persons as additional accused after an apropos consideration of the depositions of the four witnesses recorded at the trial including their cross-examination. The summoning order records substantial grounds and is well-reasoned. They urged that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence the special leave petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and after going through the material available on record, we find that the trial Court while passing the order dated 16th October, 2025, applied the legal principles to the facts in an apropos manner and committed no error whatsoever in directing summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused. The petitioner was named in the FIR and the prosecution has come out with a specific case that the statements of the eye-witnesses were not faithfully recorded and hence there were bound to be minor trivial discrepancies when the witnesses were cross-examined in reference to their statements under Section 161 CrPC. The effect of contradictions and omissions, if any, in these statements would have to be gone into by the trial Court when the case is being finally decided. However, at the stage of exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC, the trial Court is just required to apply its mind to the facts available on record and the evidence recorded at the trial to find out whether there is sufficient material to send the nonchargesheeted accused to trial. In the present case, the trial Court duly applied its mind to the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial against the charge-sheeted accused and thereafter proceeded to pass a well-reasoned order directing summoning of the petitioner to face trial as an additional accused.
12. The order passed by the trial Court has been duly affirmed by the High Court by a well-reasoned judgment dated 17th December, 2025. The fervent argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hetram @ Babli (supra) is misconceived. It is trite that no two criminal cases can be absolutely identical on facts. In Hetram @ Babli (supra), this Court has clearly observed that there was no material disclosing a prima facie case against the persons sought to be implicated by exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC. The factual position in the case at hand is materially different, as the evidence available on record, particularly the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, discloses more than a mere prima facie case against the petitioner. The judgment in Hetram @ Babli (supra) was passed in peculiar facts of that particular case and hence is of no help to the petitioner.
13. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference.
14. We clarify that the aforesaid observations have been made only for the purpose of testing the correctness of the summoning order passed by the trial Court under Section 319 CrPC, and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, which shall be decided by the trial Court, uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
15. The special leave petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
1 In short “CrPC”
2 2024 INSC 903
