Not Conclusive Finding That They Were Not Involved: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order To Summon Additional Accused U/S. 319 CrPC
The Supreme Court allowed an Appeal against the decision of the High Court, which set aside the Order of the Trial Court to summon the Respondents.
The Supreme Court restored an Order by the Trial Court to summon additional accused while stating that, merely based on police records, it could not be conclusively stated that there was no involvement.
The Court allowed an Appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the Order of the Trial Court to summon the Respondents as additional accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 34 and 25 of the Arms Act.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “We are, however, of the opinion that no conclusive finding can be given that Rajesh and Neeraj were not involved merely on the basis of such reports. Having regard to the version of the appellant in course of examination-in-chief, the Sessions Judge formed a satisfaction higher than a prima facie satisfaction of the alleged involvement of Rajesh and Neeraj and that their complicity in the crime has to be examined and tested on evidence being led at the trial.”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kumar Jain represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Initially, the police investigation led to a closure report, but after the Appellant’s statement was recorded, a cross-case was registered against the accused. Ultimately, the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC was filed only against the Respondent.
The Appellant then filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC, seeking to summon the Respondents as additional accused. The Trial Court allowed this application, but the High Court set aside this Order, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Trial Court’s decision to summon the additional accused was a plausible conclusion based on the evidence.
The Court noted, “Although, the Sessions Judge formed the requisite satisfaction bearing in mind the decision in Hardeep Singh (supra) and held that the tests laid down therein were squarely met, reading the impugned order in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court failed to consider the matter from the proper perspective and arrived at an entirely wrong conclusion.”
“To ascertain whether the Sessions Judge in allowing the application under Section 319, Cr. PC had acted mechanically or in a manner not authorised by law or in derogation of the law declared in Hardeep Singh (supra), the High Court was well within its competence to adopt an ‘eyes on’ approach, considering the nature of power conferred on the High Court by the Cr. PC as the revisional court, but regard being had to the facts and circumstances, a ‘hands off’ approach would have been advisable and the correct approach,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “We have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and not an absurd one so as to warrant interference by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction…For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the High Court stands set aside and that of the Sessions Judge is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 416)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Neeraj Kumar Jain; AOR Siddharth Jain; Advocates Sanjay Singh, Umang Shankar, Vidyut Kayarkar and Shailendra Negi
Respondents: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta; AAG Manisha Aggarwal Narain; AOR Rishi Raj Sharma and Samar Vijay Singh; Advocates Nawab Singh Jaglan, Jasbir, Sandeep Singh Somaria, Chandan Deep Singh, Akash Gupta, Akhil Gupta, Sabarni Som and Fateh Singh