“Unknown To Criminal Jurisprudence”: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Order Directing Trial Of Truck Owner Under Section 319 CrPC Without Evidence

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a direction issued by an appellate court ordering criminal proceedings against a truck owner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that such a course cannot be adopted in the absence of evidence recorded during investigation or trial. The Court said the direction was “unknown to criminal jurisprudence” and therefore unsustainable in law.

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Mohammad Nasir Qureshi, who had challenged a January 16, 2024 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chourai, District Chhindwara. The appellate court, while dismissing the appeal of a convicted accused, had directed the trial court to proceed against Qureshi as the registered owner of the truck involved in the alleged offence.

According to the record, the case arose from criminal proceedings against Komal Solanki, who had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chourai, for offences under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Go Vansh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 66 read with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. His conviction was upheld in appeal, but the appellate court simultaneously issued directions concerning Qureshi.

The appellate court had ordered that the trial court conduct proceedings against the truck’s registered owner, Mohammad Nasir Qureshi, under Section 319 CrPC and register a fresh case against him. Challenging this direction, counsel for the applicant, Advocate Ahadulla Usmani, argued before the High court that the procedure adopted by the appellate court was entirely illegal and unknown to criminal law and established trial procedure.

The State was represented by Government Advocate Samta Jain, who also fairly conceded before the court that the procedure adopted by the appellate court was not recognised under criminal law. It was submitted that a court may summon an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC only when evidence indicating involvement of such person emerges either during investigation or during trial proceedings before the court.

In the present case, however, the High court noted that neither the police charge sheet nor the evidence recorded during trial mentioned any role of Mohammad Nasir Qureshi. The prosecution had examined three witnesses, including a Kotwar, a veterinary doctor, and the investigating officer, yet none of them attributed any involvement to the applicant during the course of the criminal trial before the magistrate.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the High court reiterated the settled principles governing Section 319 CrPC. The provision empowers a trial court to summon a person not already facing trial if evidence placed before the court shows their involvement in the offence, even if they were not charge-sheeted by the police earlier.

However, the court emphasised that such power can be exercised only on the basis of evidence that comes before the court during the trial. Materials contained in the charge sheet or the police case diary, the Supreme Court has clarified, do not by themselves constitute evidence. Therefore, invoking Section 319 without any supporting testimony recorded in court would defeat the object of the statutory provision.

Applying these principles, Justice Singh observed that the direction issued by the Additional Sessions Judge could not be sustained. The High court held that ordering prosecution of the truck owner without any evidence on record was contrary to the scheme of Section 319 CrPC. “This principle is unknown to criminal jurisprudence and hence cannot be sustained,” the court said while examining the impugned appellate direction.

Consequently, the High court allowed the criminal case filed by Qureshi and set aside the portion of the appellate judgment directing proceedings against him. The court clarified that the impugned order dated January 16, 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2020 would not operate against the registered truck owner, and the petition stood disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Mohammad Nasir Qureshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: February 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh