Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

TO SUMMON U/S 319 CR.P.C. - EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH THE PERSON'S INVOLVEMENT - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld a summoning order issued by a Special Court in a criminal appeal. The court emphasized the importance of evidence showing the involvement of a person in a crime, particularly in cases of assault and abuse. The judgment highlights the discretionary power granted under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and the necessity to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022, involved Jitendra Nath Mishra as the appellant and the State of U.P. & Anr as the respondents. The appellant challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed their appeal against a summoning order issued by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (1989 Act).

The allegations in the case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Khalilabad Police Station in District Sant Kabir Nagar. The complainant accused Dharmendra Nath Mishra (the brother of the appellant), the appellant himself, and an unknown person of assaulting and abusing them. The FIR invoked several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the 1989 Act.

During the trial, the complainant and his wife testified as prosecution witnesses, providing consistent accounts of the assault and abuse. While the appellant was not named in the original FIR, the court noted that he was implicated as one of the assailants and that he is the sibling of Dharmendra.

The Supreme Court's observations focused on the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the court to summon a person not named in the FIR but shown to be involved in the crime. The court emphasized that the evidence must establish the person's involvement and that they should be tried alongside the accused already named.

In this case, the court found that the evidence provided by the complainant and his wife justified the Special Court's summoning order. The court acknowledged the existence of material indicating the appellant's involvement, given his sibling relationship with Dharmendra and the consistent testimonies regarding the assault and abuse.

While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the points raised by the appellant, including the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in testimonies, could be further addressed during the trial before the Special Court. The court encouraged the expedited proceedings, urging the Special Court to consider the appellant's arguments and any additional points raised during the trial.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the discretionary power of the court to summon individuals implicated in crimes based on the evidence presented. It underscores the importance of a fair trial and highlights the need for a prima facie case against the accused before exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: June 2, 2023

JITENDRA NATH MISHRA vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR 

Latest Legal News