Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ali Ahmad v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3733 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3655 (2 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No. 3733  of 2007


Ali Ahmad son of Kallu,

Resident of Village Teliypur,

Police Station C.V. Ganj,

Distgrict Bareilly .     ..... Accused -Applicant.


1. State of U.P.

2. Babu Qureshi son of Ghuttu,

Resident of Village Teliyapur,

Police Station C.V. Ganj,

District Bareilly. ...........Complainant -Opp.parties.


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. In the F.I.R. lodged in a Case under Section 302 and 201  I.P.C read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. four accused  Faheem , Haneef , Guddu  and  Ali Ahmad were named. The police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against accused Faheem and Haneef. Against the remaining two accused Ali Ahmad and Guddu, no charge-sheet or final report was filed and the investigation remain suspended.

2. The trial began  and P.W. 1  Sri Babu Qureshi complainant was examined. After recording the statement of P.W.1 , the trial judge found  that there was material against the two accused Ali Ahmad  and summoned him under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

3. It is against this order of summoning  dated 25.10.2007 ( in S.T. No.  795 OF 2005, pending in fast Track Court No.3, Bareilly ) that the applicant   has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard Sri Amir Khan, Advocate for applicant, and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

5. A strange feature of this case is, as noted above, that the police investigation against two accused including the applicant remained incomplete, and neither a charge-sheet nor a final report was filed. It is in this back-drop that the matter should be visualized!

6. P.W.1 has asserted in his statement that all the four accused including the present applicant were involved in the Commission of the murder. He has said in his statement that his deceased daughter ( who is said to have been murdered) had told him that she had herself heard all the four accused talking  among themselves about the plan to kill her. P.W. 1 has also mentioned in his statement that after he had brought his deceased daughter to his house all the four accused came there and the applicant insisted that he should send the daughter to her husband's house and that he would be responsible for all the consequences.

7. It was argued by the counsel for the applicant  that the applicant was  not related to any of the parties, neither to the family of the husband  nor to the family of the wife,  and there was no reason for him and no motive whatsoever to involve him in the Commission of murder. He was only an intermediary who got the marriage settled and that was his only crime. All that may be true, but the absence of motive is not sufficient to warrant  an inference  about the innocence of the applicant . It may on the contrary be said that  there must have been  some justification for the complainant to implicate the applicant.

8. However, we have to go by the evidence on record, and see, if there is sufficient justification for the exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?

9. The statements of P.W. 1, referred  to above, provides prima-facie material against the applicant justifying a trial.

10. It has also to be noticed that only one witness has  hitherto been examined, and only he alone, will have to be recalled after the impleadment of the applicant. The inclusion of the applicant in the array of the accused will not , therefore, cause any substantial  disruption in the proceedings.

11. The special feature which further justifies the summoning of the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is the circumstance that there is no investigative report of the police about him.

12. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient justification for the judge to summon the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P;C.

13. It must, however, be observed, that the Trial Court was lax in commencing the trial straightaway without asking the police as to why a report was not submitted about the applicant and the other accused Guddu?

14. Petition dismissed.


3733 /2007 n.u.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.