Hardeep Sinsh v. srn irri

AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor; High Court, Hyderabad. 2. Mrs. Jajala Rajitha, W/o. Pawan Kumar, Aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o lvlukarampura, Karimnagar Diskict. ...Revision petitioners ...Respondents IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 442 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in SC No. 4 ot 2O24 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, at Jagitial. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. G Ravi Chandran Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWATII SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.701 OF 1'.C25 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been ril_.d by the petitioners seeking to set aside the impugrl3d Order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal lVliscellaneous Petition No.315 of 2024 in Sessions Case Nc .,1 of 2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, .agitial (for short, "the learned trial Court"), whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of |rr: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr F C.") was allowed, thereby adding the petitioners as accr secl Nos.4 and 5 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2024.

02. Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learnr:ri counsel for the petitioners and Sri tVl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Perused the record

03. Learned counsel appearing for the o_.titioners submitted that the learned trial Court failed to sel isfy itself ,l 2 I with regard to the essential ingredients of any of the \l alleged offences. lt is contended that the learned trial Court dld not properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and erroneously passed the impugned Order. lt is further submitted that since there was no involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime, the Pollce had deleted their names from the array of accused during the course of investigation After such deletion, the de-facto complainant did not file any protest petition objecting to the said deletion' The power conferred upon the Court under Section 319 of Cr'P'C is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which must be exercised sparingly and with great caution' Hence, while seeking to set aside the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v' Raiesh Kumar and othersl wherein at Paragraph No 13 it was held that: ' 2025 lNSc 416 I 3 "r .law i" the sfage at which power under S e:tion "!! The. on the point of summoning altlitional accused in exercise of power conferred" by ::ection 319 Cr.p.C is welt sefiled. On. ,uy p.fitj4,-,.Ji"r,o and rety on the Constitution Bench a""ii.i ,i ni, 2y:: Hardeep Sinsh v. srn irri",i'A),rol , scc 92, where taw has been authortatirl"i ) irlir"o .consider it proper to quote tn" ion, i,,r-ion, We reached by this Couft qua the questions ori::it1g 1s, decision, hereunder: ",11.7. We accordingly sum up our conclust .tns follows Quesfions (i) and (iii) :y!.: 319 CrpC can be exercised ? AND - Whether the word ',evidence,, used in S:r;tron 319(1) CrpC has been used in " "o^prrir,,,,inu sense and includes the evidence cottectea tiuling investigation or the word ,,evidence,, i, ini,"'i' ," ''"' -- I the evidence recorded during trial? Answer 1^17.1. ln Dharam pal case [(2014) 3 SCC 30t,], the Constitution Bench has atready neU tnat, ,ifte, committal. cognizance of an offence ;r, ;; ,;';;, against a person not named as an accuser! iut against whom materials a -;;;;; "':;: ::;J:il:" !,,n1[". rliea bt, th;" t .;- ; ;; ;; ";7 ;:', !::,i::" i:, ;; :"; ; i iz; investigation. Such cooni s, wait till "evidence" under Secfron 31g ;;;; ;;;,'r:r:;, awilable^for summoning an additionat accused. t , t.2. section 319 CrpC, significantty, uses lhlo expressions that have to no-te of ie (1) inquiry e) biat. As rr,u,"!:!1!un charse' un iniqui""ui ;:;f:'::;.i:;'.:;T ?.: inquiry. tnquiries under Sections ,iO l,ri l::r:l 2!2..CrPC antl under Section 39g CrpC r;-;;",;"; of the inquiry contemptated by Section Sls-},.J Matenals coming before th "un i."liJo"';":::;:r:::;:: o[,t', inquiries !, " " evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet' 117.3. tn view of the above position the word "evidence" in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e as evidence brought during a trial. Question (iij-Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross'examination or the couft can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination'in-chief of the witness concerned? Answer 117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319 CrPC a person against whom material is dlsc/osed ls only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) CrPC the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the court need not wait for the evideice against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination' Quesfion (iv)-What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in alt likelihood be convicted? Answer 117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the accused subsequently impleaded ls to be treated as if he had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction tnit wru be required for summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC would be the same as for framing a 5 The difference in the degree f chargel d. satisfaction for summoning the oiginal accused ariC a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that tl'e trial may have atready commenced. against tl'e originat accused and it is in the course of such rtal that mateials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore tlte degree of satisfaction for summoning the accu';ttd (original and subsequent) has to be different. Quesfion (v)-Does the power under Section 1t9 CrPC extend to persons not named in the FIF tr named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or vrho have been discharged? Answer 117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a petst)n though named in the FIR but has not been cha'Ee- sheeted or a person who has been discharged car ' ;e summoned under Section 319 CrPC provided l'crn the evidence it appears that such person can be t'i:-d atong with the accused already facing trial. Howe v':r, insofar as an accused who has been dischargel is concemed the requiremenf of Secflons 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with before he car' 5e summoned afresh."

04. On the other hand, learned Additioral Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the trial Court had passed impugned order after hearing both sides and considering the material available o I record, '? 10 ln paragraph 106, the Couft held "Thus, we hold that though only a p n a facie case is ta be estabiished from tl)e evidence led before the couft, not necessarily te;tt)d on the anvil of cross-examination. it requires much stronger evidence than mere probabillt af his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case a; exercised at lhe time of framing of charge, b shotl of sat/sFaction to an extent that lh ) evidence' if goes unrcbufted, woutd lead to conviction ln the absence of such satisfactl( ) llte coutl should refrain from exercistng power under Section 319 CtPC- 6 ( and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court needs no interference of this Court as there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case

05. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is apparent on the face of the record that the n-rain Sessions Case pertains to the year 2024. fhe learned trial Cou( had duly framed the charges, which were denied by the accused. Subsequently, the learned trial Court commenced the trial and recorded the evidence of PW1 and PW2. At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecution filed an application under Section 3'l 9 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to array the petitioners as accused Nos.4 and 5.

06. ln the context of the present case, it is relevant to extract Section 319 of Cr'P C , which reads as under: "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guiltY of offence' \ 7 fi)Where, in lhe course of any inquiry inlo, or triat of, an offence, it appears from the evidence tt at a):ty person not being the ac ou:*?r",*;;;,;;;;;",:::i":i;r::I#'i,';:,":;!, with the accused, the Court ,uy prorurd iu"inrt such person for the offence wnicn ne' appe;;, ,;;;;" committed. Q)Where such person is not attending the Co ti, he m1V be arrested or summoned, as thi circums ancef, case may require, for the purpose ,for"irit-"" ([An)r person attending the Court, although not L,nder arrest or upon a summons, may be detaied O, ,u"n couft for the purpose or tne inq'uiry inil,- ", i.i i","i. if:i:" which he appears to have committed. G)\here the Couft proceeds against ,ry pr*on under sub-section (1), Then ,the -^G)the proceedings in respect of such person st a,l be -- c_ommenced afresh, and the witnesses re_heui,- (b)sublect to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had be.r'", person when the Court took cognizance of the of etce ""rur.i - '"" upon whrch the inquiry or tial was commentcl.iA-,:, 07. A bare reading of the above provisi )n makes it evident that Section 319 of Cr.p.C ccnfers an independent and discretionary power upon the (lourt to proceed against any Person who is not already an The said power can be o>srcised by the Court itself during the course of any inquiry or trial, if rt appears from the evidence that such pers)n has committed an offence for which he could be tried krgether accused in the case I ( with the existing accused This provision does not contemplate or authorize either the prosecution or any of the accused to seek the addition of another person as an accused by filing an application before the Court'

08. Manifestly, it is for the Court' on its own satisfaction derived from the evidence' to proceed against thepetitionersfortheoffencewhichtheyappeartohave committed, and not for the prosecution to move an application in this regard, particularly in a case where the names of the petitioners were deleted by the Police after due investigation, and admittedly, no protest petition was filed by the de-facto complainant However' a careful scrutiny of the entire impugned order does not disclose under which offence or under which penal provision' the petitioners are liable to be tried Having regard to the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, though only a prima facie case is required to be made out.from the evidence adduced before the Court not necessarily tested on the touchstone of cross-examination' the material must - 9 nevertheless disclose much stronger evidenc_. than a mere probability of complicity The test to be rlpplied is one which is higher than that applied at thr: stage of framing of charge, but short of such satisfactiorr that the evidence, if left unrebutted, would necessarity lead to conviction. ln the absence of such satisfaction the Court ought to refrain from exercising power under Sr:r:tion 319 of Cr.P.C. ln that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial (;.urt has committed a grave procedural irregularity in all:,ving the petition filed by the prosecution under Secticn 319 of Cr.P.C. Consequenfly, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable n law. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

09. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision (]ase is allowed. Consequenfly, the impugned Orde ,r dated 0207 2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous petition Irc.315 of 2024 in Sessions Case No 4 of 2024 passe(r by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jagitial, is herr:by set 10 aside. All proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications' if any, shall stand closed Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER /ITRUE COPY// To L 2 3 4 The Principal Sessions Judge' at Jagitial' o"" Two ccs to public ,ro"""r,or]r1gn c"rrt t"r the state of relangana [OUTI it' G Ravi Chandran' Advocate [oPUCl ""i" Two CD CoPies M YJPJPR HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ORDER CRLRC.No.701 of 2025 1i oir ?025 '.'-.. 1\. ( '/ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS ALLOWI=D. 1 1C