LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/jitendra-nath-mishra-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-20230602/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Jitendra Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2 June 2023
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Dipankar Datta, Pankaj Mithal
Citation
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 642 : 2023 INSC 576
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 7 S.C.R. 642 : 2023 INSC 576
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under – Held: What is essential for exercise of the power u/s.319 is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned – However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by s.319 must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction – In the present case, the FIR disclosed offences having been committed by one ‘D’, his brother (the appellant) and an unknown person – Complainant and his wife described the manner of assault inflicted by ‘D’ and the appellant and the utterances used by them touching the caste of the complainant and his wife – It is not that involvement of the appellant in the crime was referred to for the first time in the court – Thus, though, the appellant was not named in the FIR but, that by itself cannot be held to be decisive – Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of ‘D’ and he is named as one of the assailants, the material for forming the requisite satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent – Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with ‘D’ – Impugned order affirming the order of Special Court cannot be faulted – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r), (s) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 419, 420, 323, 406, 506.

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 – relied on.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPANKAR DATTA, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, takes exception to an order dated 1st June, 2022 of the Allahabad High Court. The impugned order dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereafter ‘1989 Act’). Under challenge in the appeal was a summoning order dated 16th October, 2021 passed by the relevant Special Court under the 1989 Act, in exercise of power conferred on him by Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter, ‘Cr. PC’)
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →