S. 319 CrPC | Additional Accused Can Be Summoned Only On Evidence Led In Trial, Not On Investigation Material: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli summoning 3 revisionists to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, and 427 of the IPC.

Briefly put, revisionists and six others were accused of assaulting the wife of the opposite party no.2 and his two sons. The revisionists were, however, not charge-sheeted by the investigating officer as their involvement was found to be false.

However, during the trial, based on the testimonies of three PWs including the opposite party no. 2, the trial court summoned them under Section 319 CrPC.

Challenging the summoning order, counsel for the revisionists argued that the trial court failed to record a finding that 'more than prima-facie case' existed against them.

They further contended that the FIR of the present case was lodged after two months through an application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC and even that application was moved after about one month of the alleged incident.

Opposing the revision, the State and the complainant's counsel submitted that the witnesses clearly named the revisionists, that two of them (P.W.-2 and P.W.-3) were injured witnesses, and therefore their testimony could not be disbelieved.

They further submitted that law is settled that while summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC, the trial court should consider only the statements of the witnesses recorded before it and trial court cannot consider the material/statements collected/recorded by the I.O. during investigation.

Against this backdrop, the High Court after analyzing the scope of Section 319 and the binding precedents, observed thus:

"From Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that trial court is empowered to summon a person to face trial, who is not the accused in the case, on the basis of the evidence. The word 'evidence' used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. is significant… the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial… trial court should consider the statements of the witnesses adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon the material available in the charge-sheet or the case diary”.

To conclude thus, the bench relied upon the recent judgments of the top court in the cases of Omi @ Omkar Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 2025 Live Law (SC) 24 and Shiv Baran Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.

Coming to the facts of the case, Justice Jain noted that while the trial court relied on the witnesses' depositions, it failed to properly assess the delay in lodging the FIR, the quality of the testimonies, or whether they established a case stronger than prima facie against the revisionists.

The Court stressed that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an “extraordinary power” which has to be used sparingly and with circumspection.

In view of this, finding that the trial court 'blindly accepted' the witness statements without properly analyzing the facts of the case, the High Court found the impugned order to be illegal and thus, it set aside the same.