LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/akhilesh-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-20250328/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Akhilesh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
28 March 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1431 : 2025 INSC 431
Acts & Sections
CrPC IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1431 : 2025 INSC 431
Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s summoning order.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summoning of the assailants to face trial – Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field between the parties – Four persons, including respondent no.2 and 3, shot dead the victim – FIR filed by the appellant-victim’s son – Respondent no.2 and 3 named in the FIR but not named in the chargesheet as accused – Chargesheet was filed u/ss.302, 504 and 506 IPC against the other two, while a final report was filed in relation to respondent nos.2 and 3 – Trial court, on basis of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, summoned respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial – Challenge to – High Court setting aside the trial court’s summoning order – Correctness:

Held: Powers u/s.319 are wide and if, during the trial or inquiry, any person, who appears to be involved in the commission of a crime but not brought before the Court as an accused, can be summoned by the Court to face the trial and such a person can be tried together with the other accused being tried before the Court – Respondent nos.2 and 3 were named in the FIR but were not named in the chargesheet as accused – After recording the depositions of prosecution witnesses which inspired the confidence of the trial court, these respondents were summoned to face trial u/s.319 – Doubts raised on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, should not be gone into at this stage – High Court erred in setting aside the well reasoned order of trial court by giving undue weightage to the s.161 statements of some witnesses – When the trial court, on the strength of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, has summoned respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial, then the decision of the trial court does not merit interference in the light of the evidence before the Court – Thus, the impugned order set aside and that of the trial court is restored – s.161. [Paras 8-13]

Keywords: Summoning order · Dispute over the boundary of agricultural field · Chargesheet · Final report · Trial or inquiry · Testimonies of prosecution witnesses · Credibility of the prosecution witnesses · Undue weightage to s.161 CrPC statements of witnesses

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court has challenged the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad where criminal revision filed by respondent no.2 (Krishna Pal Singh) and respondent no.3 (Sanju @ Sanjay) was allowed and the Trial Court’s order dated 07.07.2023, summoning the above respondents under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), was set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) On 15.11.2021, the appellant filed an FIR (No.349/2021) at P.S Dataganj, Badaun (Uttar Pr
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →