Summoning of Additional Accused Supreme Court

 

Supreme Court latest  judgment  Summoning of Additional Accused

Summoning of Additional Accused

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court can also be summoned as such person named in FIR but not implicated in charge sheet under section 319 Cr.P.C . It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trail. Summoning of Additional Accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.

Background of the Case:

The case is that First information report came to be registered against seven individuals, including the two petitioners for an offence punishable under sections 302,307,147,148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The investigating officer filed a closer report against the other accused persons the charge sheet was filed for the offences enumerated above.

During the examination-in-chief, the original informant deposed against two petitioners and has also alleged a specific overt act. Relying on the oral evidence of PW3 an application was filed under section 319 Cr.P.C to summon two petitioners as an accused to face the trail along with the other co-accused persons.

After that the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court against the summoning order passed by the Trial Court. But the High Court rejected the Revision application.

Brief Fact:

The brief fact is that the petitioner filed SLP challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23/10/2024 in Criminal Revision by which the High Court rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners – herein the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner to fact trail for the offence of murder in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Trail Court before summoning the petitioners as  additional accused in exercise of its power under section 319 Cr.P.C should have considered the closure report filed by the Investigating officer I.O. wherein the petitioners were  exonerated of the alleged offence. According to the learned counsel, the Trail Court as well as High Court ought not to have overlooked the report, as the report clearly states that the two petitioners herein are not connected with the alleged offence in any manner.

Case Cited:

In a judgment Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P and another’s 2021 SC and Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 2014 SC includes the principle that only when the strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person form the evidence the power under section 319 Cr.P.C should be exercised.

The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.

Omi @ Omkar Rathore & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another’s 

Court’s Analysis, Reasoning:

The Court are not impressed with the submission canvassed by the learned counsel that  a person is named in the FIR by complainant but the  police, after investigation finds no role  of that particular person and files charge-sheet without implication him. It is also held that the Court is not powerless and at the stage of summoning, if the Trail Courts finds that particular person should be summoned as an accused, even though not named in the charge sheet.

The Supreme Court observed that “the trail  Court  has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not  being the accused before it to fact the trail along with the 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 trail.”

It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trail.

It is also held that the Trial Court can summoned a person as an accused only on the basis of evidence  proposed before it and not on the basis of material available  in the charge sheet or the case diary, as such material contained in the charge sheet or the case  diary does not constitute evidence.

Conclusion:

In the significant judgment, the Supreme Court in the matter of Omi @ Omkar Rathore & another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another’s decided on 03/01/2025 held that it would not be proper for the trail court to reject/dismiss the application for addition of new accused by considering the record of the investigating officer. When the evidence of the complainant is found admissible, the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If the satisfaction of the investigating officer is to be conclusive, the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.

In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Reference:

Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P and another’s 2021 SC

Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 2014 SC

Mohammed  Ispahani vs. Yogendra Chandak, 2017 SCC 226

Read More:

Supreme Court Ruling on Preliminary Inquiry

Contributory Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accident

Latest Judgments