Section 319 CrPC Power Cannot Be Exercised Based On FIR Or Section 161 Statements: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Of Unmarried Sisters

"Power vested with the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature, and by now it is settled law that such a power can not be exercised in a casual manner." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon additional accused must be based strictly on evidence adduced during trial and not on pre-trial materials like the FIR or Section 161 statements.

A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj observed that the trial court committed a "serious error of law" by relying on materials already available at the stage of cognizance to summon the unmarried sisters of the husband in a dowry death case.

The case involved the death of a woman named Rachna due to burn injuries within one year of her marriage to one Pradeep. While the complainant alleged dowry harassment by the entire family, the police investigation exonerated the husband’s unmarried sisters and father, filing a chargesheet only against the husband and mother-in-law. However, during the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC, leading the trial court to summon the previously exonerated family members as additional accused.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court could exercise its power under Section 319 CrPC based on testimonies that merely reiterated allegations in the FIR and Section 161 statements. The court was also called upon to determine if the vague involvement of the husband's unmarried sisters justified the invocation of this extraordinary jurisdiction.

Extraordinary Nature of Section 319 CrPC

The Court emphasized that the power to proceed against persons not named as accused is a discretionary and extraordinary power. Justice Manoj Bajaj noted that this jurisdiction should be exercised only when the evidence recorded during the trial strongly suggests the involvement of such persons. The Court remarked that this power "cannot be exercised in a casual manner" and requires a higher standard of proof than mere suspicion.

"The trial court would be justified in resorting to the above provision where the evidence recorded during trial strongly suggests about the involvement of any other person(s), who is not before the trial court."

Pre-Trial Material Cannot Form Basis for Summoning

The Court found that the trial court had primarily relied upon the allegations contained in the FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC. The Bench held that this constituted a serious legal flaw, as the material relied upon by the trial court was already before it at the time of taking cognizance and framing charges.

Court Rejects Reliance on FIR and Section 161 Statements

Justice Bajaj observed that since the court did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against these individuals at the stage of cognizance despite having the FIR and Section 161 statements, it could not later use that same material to summon them under Section 319 CrPC. The Bench stated that the powers under Section 319 "can be exercised only on the strength of the evidence adduced during trial."

"The material relied upon by trial court was already before it when it took cognizance and framed charges against the accused, but at that stage, no such order was passed."

Vague Allegations Against Unmarried Sisters

Examining the specific facts, the Court noted that the FIR lacked specific allegations of dowry demands against the husband’s unmarried sisters (Petitioners 3 to 5). Furthermore, the victim’s dying declaration implicated only the mother-in-law and did not mention the sisters or other family members. The Court found that the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 did not offer any "new piece of evidence" that had not already been considered by the investigating officer.

Testimonies Merely Echoed Exonerated Version

The Court highlighted that the depositions during the trial merely echoed the initial version in the FIR, which had already been tested by the Investigating Officer during the probe. Since the dying declaration did not implicate the sisters, the Court held that "bald allegations" in the depositions could not be construed as strong prima facie evidence.

"The depositions of these witnesses... if, reiterates the version contained in the F.I.R. cannot be construed as a new piece of evidence emerging only during trial as the same stood analyzed and tested by Investigating Officer while declaring them innocent."

Final Directions and Acquittal Context

Regarding the father-in-law and another petitioner (Petitioners 1 and 2), the Court noted that they had already faced trial and were acquitted by the trial court in March 2012. Consequently, the revision petition was rendered infructuous as against them. For the unmarried sisters, the Court found the summoning order suffered from "grave illegality and impropriety."

The High Court allowed the revision petition in favor of the unmarried sisters, setting aside the trial court’s summoning order dated March 3, 2011. The ruling reaffirms that Section 319 CrPC requires substantive "evidence" from the trial phase that provides a higher degree of satisfaction than the mere prima facie case required at the stage of cognizance.

Date of Decision: 16 April 2026