Person Who Had Initially Been Named In FIR But Not Charge Sheeted Can Also Be Summoned U/S. 319 CrPC: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court can summon a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, even if that person had been named in FIR but was not named in the charge sheet.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by Petitioners challenging the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which affirmed the summoning order against them by the Trial Court under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Bench stated that a Court is not “powerless” by virtue of Section 319 of the CrPC as it can summon persons to face trial who are named in the FIR but not implicated in the chargesheet.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “The trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.”
Senior Advocate Anil Kaushik represented the Petitioners.
An FIR was registered against seven people, including the Petitioners, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC. However, the Petitioners were not implicated in the chargesheet and the the Investigating Officer filed a closure report.
During the examination-in-chief, the First Informant deposed against the two Petitioners attributing specific overt acts. Relying on this oral evidence, an Application under Section 319 of the CrPC was filed to summon the Petitioners as accused to face the trial.
The Petitioners challenged the summoning Order but the High Court rejected their revision Application and thereby affirmed the order of the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court stated, “We are not impressed with the submission as noted in para 14 above canvassed by the learned Senior counsel for the simple reason that a person is named in the FIR by the complainant but the police, after investigation finds no role of that particular person and files charge-sheet without implicating him.”
The Bench explained that “the Court is not powerless and at the stage of summoning, if the Trial Court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so.”
The Court emphasised that it would not be proper for the Trial Court to reject an application for the addition of a new accused by considering the records of the Investigating Officer. “When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed no error not to speak of any error of law in passing the impugned order.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 27)
