S. 319 CrPC | Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea For Summoning Additional Accused In Assault Case, Says Injured Person Didn't Name Them

Dismissing challenge to an order rejecting plea under Section 319 CrPC for summoning three men in an assault case, Rajasthan High Court held that when the injured person was themselves silent about the involvement and role of these men, then statements of other witnesses hardly made any difference.

Section 319, CrPC (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) empowered a court to summon any person who appeared to have committed an offence, even if they were not initially accused, and proceeded against with the existing accused.

It was the case of the petitioner that the three respondents, along with the other two co-accused in the case had assaulted the injured for which FIR under IPC Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 341(wrongful restraint) and 323(voluntarily causing hurt) was registered.

During trial, statements of the injured, complainant and other eye-witnesses were recorded, who had specifically alleged active participation of the respondents in the offence.

Therefore, in light of this prima facie evidence, an application under Section 319, CrPC, was filed by the petitioner for summoning respondents which was rejected by the lower court. Hence, the revision petition was filed.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:

"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against only two accused persons who were named in the statement of the injured. When the injured is silent about the involvement and role of the accused-respondents, then under these circumstances, the statements of other witnesses hardly makes any difference".

The high court perused the records and highlighted that the injured, in this statements, had named only the two co-accused as assailants, and no mention had been made of the respondents.

Further, the Court observed that the power under Section 319, CrPC was discretionary in nature, and such discretion of the trial court could not be interfered with lightly unless it was shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

“looking to the fact that the discretionary power has been given to the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which being extraordinary one, the same is required to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the trial Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

Accordingly, the revision petition was rejected.

Title: Narendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 348

Click Here To Read/Download Order