Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Additional accused – Summoning of –Appeal filed by the father-inlaw(appellant no.1), sister-in-law(appellant no.2), and brother-inlaw(appellant no.3) of the deceased against the High Court judgment wherein the High Court summoned them u/s 319 of the CrPC, 1973 as additional accused – Earlier, respondent no. 1 (brother of the deceased woman) had filed an FIR u/s 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC against the husband of the deceased, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the abovementioned appellants – The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material against the appellants, and a challan was filed only against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased – Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. before trial Court to summon the appellants as additional accused – Trial Court dismissed the said application – Respondent no. 1 approached the High Court – The High Court summoned the appellants to face trial – Discontented with their summoning, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: Power of summoning u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused – The procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial Court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned – In absence of any credible evidence, the power u/s.319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked – In the instant case, the record reveals that appellant no.1 had asked respondent no.1 to spend 20 lakhs on marriage – Therefore, High Court summoning appellant no.1 satisfies the ingredients of s.319 Cr.P.C. – However, no credible evidence to connect the death of deceased with appellant nos.2 and 3.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused. This Court may add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked. [Para 17][525-H; 526-A-C]
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 : 2014 (2 ) SCR 1; Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289 – 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.
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.