SHIV BARAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

SHIV BARAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

The High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's summons under Section 319 CrPC by applying a trial-level standard and conducting a mini-trial relying on affidavits; evidence in the examination-in-chief of eyewitnesses consistently named the respondent and assigned a specific role (armed with a baton), thereby prima facie revealing his complicity and satisfying the statutory requisites for summoning under Section 319 CrPC, leading the Supreme Court to restore the summoning order while noting that the power must be exercised sparingly and requires satisfaction greater than a mere prima facie case at framing but short of conviction.

Parties
Appellant (complainant): Shiv Baran; Respondent: State of U.P. & Anr.; Respondent (respondent No.2): Rajendra Prasad Yadav
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Quashing Summons Issued Under Section 319 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 23 July 2024 set aside; summoning order dated 28 September 2023 of the Trial Court restored
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Summoning of Additional Accused, Quashing of Summons, Standard of Satisfaction for Summoning, Motive, Common Intention
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Section 319 Cr PC Summoning of Additional Accused Quashing of Summons Standard of Satisfaction for Summoning Motive +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiv Baran

Appellant (complainant)

State of U.P. & Anr.

Respondent

Rajendra Prasad Yadav

Respondent (respondent No.2)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Quashing Summons Issued Under Section 319 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in quashing the summons issued under Section 319 CrPC by the Trial Court
  2. 2 What is the standard and prerequisites for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC
  3. 3 Whether evidence on record prima facie implicated Respondent No.2 so as to warrant summoning under Section 319 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's summons under Section 319 CrPC by applying a trial-level standard and conducting a mini-trial relying on affidavits; evidence in the examination-in-chief of eyewitnesses consistently named the respondent and assigned a specific role (armed with a baton), thereby prima facie revealing his complicity and satisfying the statutory requisites for summoning under Section 319 CrPC, leading the Supreme Court to restore the summoning order while noting that the power must be exercised sparingly and requires satisfaction greater than a mere prima facie case at framing but short of conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order dated 23 July 2024 set aside; summoning order dated 28 September 2023 of the Trial Court restored

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 23.07.2024 of the High Court set aside
  • Summoning order dated 28.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Sessions Trial No.109/2018 restored