Summoning Cannot Be a Weapon for Retrial on the Same Material: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Order Passed in Undue Haste Under Section 319 CrPC

“Once Rejected Multiple Times, Same Evidence Cannot Justify Fresh Summoning Without Stronger Material” – In a significant judgment impacting the manner in which Section 319 CrPC is invoked during criminal trials, the Allahabad High Court set aside the order summoning three individuals to face trial for murder and other serious offences under the IPC. The summoning was done on the basis of repeated applications under Section 319 CrPC, despite earlier rejections at various stages, and notably, without any fresh evidence beyond what had already been considered and discarded.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra, delivering the verdict, observed:

“Reiterated invocation of Section 319 on the same material—already rejected on merits—cannot be permitted without the emergence of strong and cogent new evidence... The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and cannot be exercised mechanically or casually.”

The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the Sessions Court, which proceeded to summon the revisionists in haste and without considering a clarificatory order passed by the Supreme Court just a few days prior. The judgment serves as a judicial warning against procedural shortcuts, especially where the liberty of individuals is at stake.

“Judicial Propriety Demands Patience, Not Panic — Time Limits Can’t Justify Ignoring Supreme Court Orders”

The matter originated from an FIR lodged in Case Crime No. 126 of 2020, at Police Station Mundali, Meerut, regarding an incident involving double murder. The revisionists were initially named in the FIR but excluded from the chargesheet following investigation and statements of independent witnesses who confirmed their non-presence at the scene. Despite repeated attempts, applications to summon them under Section 319 were rejected four times—first at the stage of cognizance, then post-committal, and subsequently even after partial examination of prosecution witnesses.

On the fifth attempt, however, the Sessions Court allowed the application (133-Kha) and summoned the revisionists. What makes the matter legally disturbing is that this order was passed on 17 August 2024, just hours after the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the revisionists, with a significant clarification that the dismissal would not prejudice their rights or reflect on their role in the offence.

The High Court held that:

“The Sessions Court showed undue haste in passing the summoning order on the very same day the Supreme Court’s dismissal was uploaded, ignoring repeated requests to wait... Judicial discipline demanded deference to the clarification of the apex court.”

Noting that a certified copy of the High Court’s earlier remand order had been filed only on 18 July 2024, the Sessions Court had until 18 August to decide the matter. Yet, even with the SLP order being uploaded on the same day, the Sessions Court passed the summoning order without perusing it, disregarding the request of the defence to await the Supreme Court's ruling.

“Evidence Identical to Section 161 Statements Cannot Justify Summoning Under Section 319”: Court Reiterates Precedents

A pivotal point in the judgment was the lack of new incriminating material. The High Court held that the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 during trial added nothing substantial to what they had already stated under Section 161 CrPC.

The Court made reference to Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, observing:

“The Court must assess whether new material has surfaced in trial testimony beyond what was recorded under Section 161 CrPC... In the present case, nothing new emerged. Independent witnesses had denied the presence of the applicants, and their statements have not been impeached.”

It was further emphasized that even though Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly) was invoked, that does not dilute the requirement for strong prima facie evidence against each individual sought to be summoned.

Citing Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated:

“When an application under Section 319 is moved post cross-examination, courts must consider such cross-examination. Omissions and contradictions can negate the threshold of prima facie satisfaction.”

Sessions Court Found to Have Acted Mechanically and Ignored Binding Judicial Principles

The High Court criticized the Sessions Court for failing to engage with the binding ratio of earlier judgments and instead mechanically relying on the High Court’s remand order dated 08.07.2024, without appreciating the broader judicial context.

While the High Court’s earlier order had referred to the Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana decision, which adopted a broader view under Section 149 IPC, the Supreme Court’s clarification in the SLP explicitly stated:

“Dismissal of the SLP shall not be treated as an expression on merits, including the alleged role of the petitioners.”

Despite being informed of this clarification, the Sessions Judge proceeded with the order, citing urgency due to the expiration of a one-month timeline fixed by the High Court. The High Court rebuked this reasoning, noting:

“Heavens would not have fallen had the court waited for one more day. Judicial haste in such serious matters is not commendable. Rather, it erodes the faith of litigants in the system.”

Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration by Another Sessions Judge

Taking into account the cumulative impropriety—procedural, evidentiary, and legal—Justice Shailendra directed that the entire matter be reconsidered afresh by another Sessions Judge:

“The order dated 17.08.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration... The Sessions Court shall pass a reasoned order, uninfluenced by earlier findings, after considering cross-examination, Supreme Court clarification, and all binding precedents.”

The fresh order is to be passed on or before 31.03.2026, following due hearing of all parties.

Verdict Reasserts the High Threshold for Section 319 Summoning and Judicial Patience

This ruling fortifies the settled position that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be invoked with extreme caution. The High Court has made it clear that repeated attempts to summon individuals on the same material, without emergence of new evidence, constitute misuse of process.

By directing fresh consideration before a different judicial officer, the Court has ensured procedural neutrality and preserved the faith of the parties in the justice system.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025