Allahabad HC Quashes Murder Summoning Order, Flags Material Improvements in Protest Petition Complaint
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Section 302 IPC summoning order, holding that motive and Rs.35,000 possession surfaced for the first time during complaint inquiry, not in the FIR or protest petition.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed a summoning order directing two accused persons to face trial for murder under Section 302 IPC, finding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, failed to apply its mind before proceeding against them. Justice Anil Kumar-X, sitting singly, allowed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 3 June 2026. The judgment sets out detailed guidance on how a Magistrate must conduct inquiry proceedings when a protest petition is converted into a complaint case, particularly where the police had already submitted a final report finding no case made out.
The Death of Rahul and the Competing Versions
On the night of 3 November 2013, the village Chaukidar Rajendra informed Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr, that one Rahul, son of Anokhe Lal, had died. The Chaukidar's account was that Rahul had consumed liquor, lost his senses, and fell from the roof of one Maharaj Singh. Villagers took him to a hospital at Bulandshahr, where he died of his injuries.
Later the same night, Rahul's brother Pradeep Kumar lodged an FIR in Case Crime No. 221 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC at the same police station. His version was different. He alleged that at around 7:00 p.m., the petitioners — Lala, son of Mahesh, and Mahesh, son of Dhoom Singh — first made Rahul consume liquor at their house and then assaulted him, causing fatal head injuries. Villagers took the injured Rahul to the District Hospital, Bulandshahr, where he was declared dead.
The police investigated the matter and submitted a final report concluding that no case was made out against the accused. Pradeep Kumar filed a protest petition before the Magistrate. The protest petition was treated as a complaint case, and statements of seven witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, found sufficient grounds to proceed and, by order dated 20 January 2024, summoned both petitioners to face trial under Section 302 IPC.
The petitioners challenged that summoning order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2024. The revision was dismissed by order dated 18 December 2024. Both orders were then challenged before the High Court under Article 227.
What the Petitioners Argued
Shri Vikrant Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, pressed several points. The Investigating Officer had found that Rahul fell accidentally from the roof while intoxicated, and the final report reflected that conclusion. Rajendra, the village Chaukidar who first reported the incident and whose account supported the accidental fall theory, was never examined by the complainant during the inquiry proceedings. His non-examination, counsel argued, left a material gap in the prosecution version.
Of the seven witnesses whose statements were recorded, none claimed to have actually witnessed the occurrence. Their accounts rested on suspicion, hearsay, or information received from others. Counsel pointed specifically to P.W.-2 Somveer, the brother-in-law of the informant, who stated that the petitioners had confessed before him that they had no intention to kill Rahul. Even accepting that statement at face value, counsel argued, it undermined rather than supported a charge of intentional murder under Section 302 IPC.
On motive, counsel pointed out that the FIR was entirely silent. No motive was mentioned. It was only during the complaint proceedings that a new story emerged: that the petitioners had taken Rahul to their house intending to grab Rs.35,000/- allegedly in his possession, and had killed him for that money. This allegation, counsel submitted, was an afterthought introduced to shore up a weak case and had no foundation in the original FIR or the protest petition.
The Respondents' Case for Upholding the Summoning Order
Shri Prateek Tyagi for the State and Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan for the private respondent argued that at the summoning stage, the Court need only be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. The complainant Pradeep Kumar, in his statement under Section 200 CrPC, had specifically stated that Rahul had returned from Orissa one day before the incident carrying Rs.35,000/-, that on the morning of 2 November 2013 both petitioners came to his house and took Rahul with them on the pretext of having tea, and that Rahul was thereafter found seriously injured and died.
P.W.-1 Pawan, P.W.-3 Sheetal (wife of the deceased), and P.W.-4 Rekha had consistently stated that Rahul was called by the petitioners from his house and went with them, and that he was carrying Rs.35,000/- at the time. The money was found missing after his death. Coupled with the last-seen evidence, respondents argued this constituted strong incriminating circumstances. The reliability of witnesses and the conclusions of the Investigating Officer were matters for trial, not for the summoning stage.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Anil Kumar-X found the summoning order unsustainable on multiple grounds.
The first gap concerned the place where the body was found. Rahul's dead body was found in front of the house of Maharaj Singh. The complaint version placed the assault at the petitioners' house. No witness explained how or when the deceased moved from the petitioners' house to the place where he was found. This missing link, the Court held, goes to the root of the matter and creates a serious gap in the prosecution story.
The second and more significant problem was the introduction of the Rs.35,000/- motive. Neither the FIR nor the protest petition contained any allegation that Rahul was carrying that amount or that the petitioners had taken him with the intention of grabbing it. These facts surfaced for the first time in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The Court held that a protest petition, once converted into a complaint, becomes the foundational pleading of the complaint case and must contain all material facts constituting the accusation. Material facts omitted from the protest petition cannot ordinarily be supplied later through oral statements. The Court observed that such improvements assume greater significance when they seek to provide motive where none existed in the original version.
The third problem was the testimony of P.W.-2 Somveer. He claimed to have seen the petitioners assaulting the deceased in front of their house, but said he left out of fear. He then claimed the petitioners subsequently confessed before him that they had no intention to kill Rahul. The Court found this conduct unnatural: if the witness was too frightened to intervene or remain at the spot, it was difficult to comprehend how the petitioners would thereafter make a confession before him. These inconsistencies, the Court held, required careful scrutiny before any reliance could be placed on his statement.
Beyond the specific facts, the Court laid down principles for how Magistrates must approach the conversion of a final report into a complaint case. Where the offence is grave and the true facts can be unearthed only through scientific, medical, forensic, or circumstantial investigation, the Court must first consider whether a complaint inquiry would genuinely advance the cause of justice, or whether directing further investigation would be the more appropriate course. A complaint inquiry is not intended to substitute a full-fledged criminal investigation in cases where crucial facts — such as recovery of incriminating articles, call records, forensic analysis, or reconstruction of the incident — can be established only through investigative processes.
The Court also addressed the Magistrate's conduct during inquiry. Merely recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC in a mechanical manner may not serve the purpose of justice. Witnesses should be questioned about the source of their knowledge, the circumstances in which they acquired it, any delay in disclosure, and omissions in earlier versions. Where the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon should prima facie form a coherent chain pointing towards the accused. The summoning order for a grave offence must reflect application of judicial mind and disclose the reasons which persuaded the Court to proceed against the accused despite the police having found otherwise.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the Magistrate had failed to properly scrutinise the material before it. The impugned summoning order suffered from non-application of mind and could not be allowed to stand.
Order
The petition was allowed. The order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2024, and the order dated 20 January 2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in Complaint Case No. 1871 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr, were set aside.