Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Before ordering the issuance of summons, the learned trial court ought to have considered the entire material and assigned justifiable reasons to establish the involvement of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Without there being any material against them, it is not proper to add them as accused and issue summons." Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot mechanically summon individuals as additional accused upon a protest petition without evaluating the material on record and providing justifiable reasons for their involvement.

Justice Sunitha Gandham observed that where the original complaint does not attribute any role to proposed accused persons, the Trial Court cannot simply add them to the criminal proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without demonstrating prima facie material against them.

The matter arose out of a marital dispute where the de facto complainant lodged a police report in Crime No. 237 of 2020 alleging that his wife, father-in-law, a practicing advocate, and others trespassed into his house, assaulted him and his mother, and issued criminal threats. While the police omitted the advocate and other proposed accused in the final charge sheet following witness statements, the complainant filed a protest petition under Section 200 of the CrPC. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Eluru summoned the advocate as Accused No. 3 and added two women social workers as Accused Nos. 10 and 11, prompting them to move the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal case.

The primary question before the court was whether a Magistrate can summon additional accused on a protest petition without recording justifiable reasons or finding prima facie material in the record. The court was also called upon to determine whether proceedings against an accused specifically named in the first information report with direct overt acts can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of contrary police investigation findings.

Absence Of Reasons Renders Summoning Order Unsustainable

Examining the order passed by the Magistrate on the protest petition, the High Court observed that the Trial Court had failed to assign any justifiable reasons for adding the two women social workers as accused persons. The Court pointed out that their names were conspicuously absent from the initial police report lodged by the complainant, and the record showed no immediate material implicating them in the alleged trespass or assault.

The bench noted that the Magistrate had merely recorded that it found it "just and necessary" to add them as accused and issued summons along with the other accused. Emphasizing the necessity of judicial application of mind, the Court stated that without prima facie material on record, summoning them was impermissible.

"Before ordering the issuance of summons, the learned trial court ought to have considered the entire material and assigned justifiable reasons to establish the involvement of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Without there being any material against them, it is not proper to add them as accused and issue summons."

Section 482 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Assess Reliability Of FIR Allegations

Turning to the case of the practicing advocate arrayed as Accused No. 3, the High Court declined to grant any relief, noting that the de facto complainant had specifically named him in the original complaint. The Court highlighted that the complainant had explicitly alleged that the advocate personally trespassed into his house and physically assaulted him and his mother.

Justice Gandham reiterated that under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court is bound to accept the allegations in the complaint at their face value and cannot evaluate the correctness, truthfulness, or reliability of the allegations at the threshold stage. The Court noted that the mere fact that the investigating officer omitted his name in the final report based on statements of neighbours cannot be a ground to quash proceedings when the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences.

"It is well settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash FIR or charge sheet, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se and it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations."

Parameters For Inherent Powers Under Bhajan Lal Reiterated

The Court placed strong reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reiterating the seven cardinal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Court underscored that quashing powers must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases, without embarking on an inquiry into the genuineness of the allegations.

Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters, the Court explained that proceedings can be quashed where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, where there is an express legal bar, or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides. Applying these standards, the bench concluded that while no prima facie case was established against the two women who were not named in the initial report, clear allegations existed against the advocate that warranted trial.

Conclusion

The High Court partly allowed the criminal petition by quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 396 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 448, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two proposed accused who were added without material justification. However, the Court dismissed the petition concerning the practicing advocate, holding that direct and specific allegations in the original complaint established a prima facie case against him.

Date of Decision: 24 August 2026