Section 319 CrPC | Summoning Additional Accused Requires Evidence Stronger Than Prima Facie: Allahabad High Court

“Extraordinary Power Under Section 319 CrPC Requires Strong And Cogent Evidence, Not General Allegations”, In a significant ruling on the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Allahabad High Court held that trial courts cannot summon additional accused merely on the basis of vague and general allegations, particularly in matrimonial disputes involving relatives of the husband.

Justice Abdul Shahid setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, which had summoned the father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 306 IPC by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The High Court observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and discretionary, and must be exercised sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence emerges during trial indicating the involvement of a person not already accused.

The Court held that the impugned summoning order was unsustainable as the allegations against the revisionists were vague, unsupported by specific acts of cruelty or dowry demand, and largely based on hearsay statements.

“Summoning Additional Accused Requires Evidence Stronger Than Prima Facie”

The case arose from the suicide of Prachi, who had married Jitendra Gaur on 29 January 2015. Her father lodged an FIR alleging dowry harassment and assault by the husband, father-in-law and step-mother-in-law, claiming that the in-laws demanded ₹10 lakh and a car.

During investigation, however, the police exonerated the father-in-law and step-mother-in-law, finding no material against them. A charge sheet was filed only against the husband for offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 323 IPC, while allegations under Section 304-B IPC were also dropped.

During the course of trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the father-in-law and step-mother-in-law as additional accused.

Accepting the application, the trial court summoned them to face trial under Section 306 IPC.

Challenging the order, the revisionists approached the High Court.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized that the standard for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much higher than the standard required for framing charges.

Justice Shahid observed:

“The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence appears against a person from the evidence led before the court.”

The Court reiterated that mere existence of a prima facie case is insufficient for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.

“Evidence Under Section 319 Means Evidence Recorded During Trial”

The High Court also clarified that the word “evidence” in Section 319 Cr.P.C. refers only to evidence recorded during trial, and not to materials collected during investigation.

Relying on decisions such as Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of M.P. (2025) and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that a person can be summoned as an additional accused only if the evidence before the trial court indicates his or her involvement in the offence.

However, in the present case, the Court found that the testimony of witnesses did not disclose specific acts of cruelty or dowry demand attributable to the revisionists.

The Court noted that even the father of the deceased admitted that during the entire period of marriage no complaint of dowry demand or cruelty had ever been made.

“Hearsay Evidence Cannot Be Basis For Summoning Accused”

Another significant aspect considered by the Court was the reliance placed by the trial court on hearsay evidence.

The trial court itself had acknowledged that the testimony of PW-8, the sister-in-law of the deceased, regarding complaints made by the deceased about harassment was hearsay in nature.

Despite recording this observation, the trial court proceeded to summon the revisionists.

The High Court found this approach legally flawed and observed that such hearsay statements cannot constitute strong and cogent evidence necessary for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The Court also noted that the father-in-law had himself informed the complainant about the deceased’s suicide immediately, indicating absence of concealment.

“Courts Must Guard Against Mechanical Implication Of Husband’s Relatives”

The Court further cautioned against the tendency to implicate the entire family of the husband in matrimonial disputes, particularly where specific allegations are absent.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Chhaya v. State of Maharashtra (2018) and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012), the Court emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws are insufficient to compel them to face criminal trial.

Justice Shahid observed that in the present case:

“There were only general and vague allegations against the revisionists being father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of the deceased, with no specific allegation of cruelty or dowry demand.”

The Court also noted that the minor daughter of the deceased, examined during investigation, did not make any allegation against the revisionists.

Setting aside the summoning order, the Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision and held that the requirements for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied.

The Court quashed the order dated 31 October 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, along with all consequential proceedings against the revisionists.

At the same time, the Court directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the ongoing sessions trial against the husband of the deceased in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026