Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that the power given under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. 

Section 319 of CrPC gives power to a Court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka further held that the crucial test as mentioned by the constitution bench in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others has to be applied, which is, more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

In Hardeep Singh, the Constitution bench had clearly deciphered the scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code. It had held thus,

"Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross­-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC."

While relying on the constitution bench's dictum, the top court allowed an appeal by one Sagar assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby it had set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, who had in fact rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 for summoning Sagar as an accused and face trial in a case filed under Section 302 IPC.

Per the complainant, his son Nitin was seen in the company of Jagpal and Sagar while he was returning back at about 9 am and when he went at about 9 am when the complainant went to the field of Jagpal and called Nitin, Jagpal asked Sagar to disconnect the electric wire and at some distance he saw Nitin lying near the Mend in a naked position, burnt by an electric wire around the neck. On calling Jagpal and Sagar, they ran away from the spot.

A complaint was registered and later chargesheet was filed only against Jagpal.

It was recorded in the chargesheet that from the statements of the complainant and witnesses and inspection of the place of incident, naming of the accused Sagar who was a juvenile and minor at the relevant point of time, was found to be wrong. 

It was alleged that the investigating officer had arbitrarily removed the name of Sagar from the chargesheet, although he was also involved in committing the said crime.  

The trial judge while holding that there must be a strong and cogent evidence occurred against a person from the evidence led before the Court and taking into consideration the material available on record, did not satisfy the issue of  summon, rejected the application made under Section 319 of the Code.

On the other hand, the High Court without appreciating the evidence on record, casually set aside the order of the trial judge. 

The bench found that the High Court had even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by the Supreme Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which had been considered by the trial Judge under its order.

Accordingly, the top court while relying on the law laid down for application of Section 319, allowed the appeal filed by Sagar and set aside the order of the High Court.

Cause Title: Sagar vs State of UP and Anr.