Obligatory To Exercise Power U/S.319 CrPC, Where Evidence Reveals Complicity Of Prospective Accused: Supreme Court Restores Summoning Order

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a Criminal Revision quashing the summons issued against the second respondent- Rajendra Prasad Yadav, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “It is a settled law that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised sparingly. However, where the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused, it becomes obligatory for the authority to exercise the power provided under the said Section.”

AOR Gaurav represented the Petitioner while AOR Adarsh Upadhyay represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Two FIRs were lodged in respect of an incident which allegedly took place in 2017. The First FIR was registered by the appellant-complainant under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against four persons, alleging that the said accused had, with the common intention, entered his house and assaulted his brother, who, when taken to the Hospital, succumbed to the injuries. The Second FIR was lodged by one Suresh Kumar under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of IPC, alleging that the accused persons entered his house, hurled abuses, and assaulted the first informant and his wife. The Apex Court was dealing with the first FIR.

The Investigating Officer concluded that the accused, Rajendra Prasad, did not play any role in the alleged crime and, in connection with the first FIR, submitted a chargesheet only with respect to other accused persons, viz., Dinesh Yadav and Shiv Murat Yadav. The complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC praying to add the second respondent’s name as co-accused, which was eventually allowed by the Trial Court. In a petition preferred by the respondent-accused, the High Court set aside the said order of summoning. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision, empowering the Court to proceed against any person, even if not cited as an accused, based on the evidence collected during the inquiry or trial, revealing the complicity of such a person to be arrayed as an accused. The object is to ensure that no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law, which is based on the doctrine of judex damnatur cum nocens absolviture (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). The provision casts a duty upon the Court to ensure that the real culprit does not get away unpunished, for the same to be part of a fair trial. However, the power under the said Section has to be invoked only upon the satisfaction of cogent material brought on record, necessitating such impleadment.

Referring to some judgments involving such provision, the Bench said, “The foregoing discussion would reveal the following statutory requisites for summoning any person not being the accused: (a) such person has committed an offence; (b) his complicity is revealed from the evidence collected during inquiry or trial; and (c) for such offence, he can be tried together with the accused already facing trial.”

The Bench also highlighted the principles that the Trial Court ought to follow while exercising power under this Section. “This provision is a facet of that area of law which gives protection to victims and society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime should not escape the force of law”, it said while also adding, “The Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as the expression used is 'such person could be tried’ and not ‘should be tried’.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that Rajendra, although not charge-sheeted, was named in the FIR, and the evidence prima facie revealed his role. The first informant categorically mentioned him as the one who came along with the others, with a common intent, abusing and beating, causing the death of his brother, apart from causing serious injuries to the other. “Therefore, at this stage, there is sufficient material to put him on trial; whether he will ultimately be convicted or not is left to be determined by a full-fledged inquiry at the end of the trial. It would be premature to comment anything on his conviction”, the Bench noted.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order while restoring the summoning order.

Cause Title: Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 860)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Gaurav

Respondent: AOR Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocates Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri, Anshuman Nayak, Rahul Kulhare, AOR Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Sandeep Garausa, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Shehla Chaudhary

Click here to read/download Judgment