Rahul Kumar State Of U.P. And 3 Others v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : : Raghvendra Kumar

the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 319 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist had lodged an F.I.R. on

11.10.2020 against Sonu, Machhla Devi, Arvind, Munna Lal and Rocky, which was registered as Case Crime No.615 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons had committed murder of informant's sister Anita. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial was proceeded and the prosecution examined P.W.-1 namely Rahul Kumar (informant/revisionist herein) on 18.01.2023 and this witness was cross examined by the defence. After the evidence of P.W.-1 was completed, he moved an application on 13.05.2024 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 along with other co-accused. The learned trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-1 and other materials brought on record, had rejected the application being Paper No.42- Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.01.2025, which is impugned in the present criminal revision.

3. Heard Sri Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for revisionist/informant has submitted that at the 2 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 time and date of incident the opposite party nos.2 to 4 were also accompanying with other co-accused and committed the murder of his sister Anita but the Investigating Officer did not submit a charge-sheet against them, whereas from the evidence of P.W.-1, the offence against opposite party nos.2 to 4 are fully made out and they are also liable to be tried along with other co-accused. The trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in rejecting the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the entire facts and circumstances of the case had not been properly considered by the trial court and the application was rejected in a very casual manner.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the trial court after considering the entire evidence of P.W.-1 has rightly passed the order dated 08.01.2025. From the evidence of P.W.-1 the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the incident was not established. It is further submitted that opposite party nos.2 to 4, who are Jeth, Jethani and Nandoi of deceased were named in the F.I.R. but during investigation the Investigating Officer has not found any reliable evidence against them, therefore, he had not submitted the charge-sheet against them. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 is real brother of the deceased and also interested witness and his evidence was not reliable. It is further submitted that the Police neither had filed charge-sheet against opposite party nos.2 to 4 nor has submitted the final report against them, as they are absconders.

6. Besides the above, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. for the State that in the cross-examination of the testimony of P.W.-1, which is at 112 of the paper book, the allegation of harassment with the deceased has only been made and for the same also, she did not make any complaint. In the statement of P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief, the common allegations against the proposed accused who are Jethani- Machhala Devi, Sonu- Husband, Arvind Jeth of the deceased have been made regarding maar-peet being committed by them with the deceased due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. It is admitted that the cause of death of the deceased is due to hanging and the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are not beneficiary of the dowry given by P.W.-1. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the entire facts and circumstances of the case had been properly considered by the trial court while rejecting the application of P.W.- 1/revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial 3 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 court after prima-facie satisfaction that the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 4 are not established from the evidence of P.W.-1, has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

7. On above premise, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the powers given under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are discretionary powers of the court and are to be exercised sparingly and the trial court after having thoroughly examined the record found no substance in the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has rightly rejected the same.

8. Before considering the merits of the contention of rival parties it is necessary to refer to Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

9. By bare reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with other accused.

10. The view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in latest decision reported in (2019) 7 SCC 806 Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The relevant paragraph 10 is quoted herein below:- "10. The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be 4 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 exercised sparingly."

12. In a case law of Ram Singh vs. Ram Niwas and Ors 2009 (65) ACC 971 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary powers which should be exercised only when it appears to the Court that a person not being tried has committed an offence on the basis of evidence on record. Mere existence of prima-facie case not sufficient to exercise the revision. The Apex Court further observed that a person came to be summoned as an additional accused only when the Court reached at the conclusion that the evidence is available on record is such that, if left uncontroverted, it would lead to the conviction of accused.

13. For the purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. more than prima-facie and stronger evidence is required then that of framing of charge. In the case in hand the learned trial court is of the view that the evidence which is on record is not sufficient to convict the accused. General type of allegations have been levelled against the proposed accused. Moreover, in the cross- examination of P.W.-1, he admitted that the deceased would talk regularly with the complainant but she did not make any complaint to him. In view of all the evidence brought before the court, the learned trial court also recorded its finding that the evidence which is on record, if left unrebutted, is not sufficient to convict the proposed accused.

14. The powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power, it has a discretion not to proceed, since the expression used is "may" and not "shall". The legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to the trial court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction under this section. The expression "appears" indicates an application of mind by the court to the evidence that has come before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 of the Code or not.

15. In view of the evidence on record, the findings of trial court not to summon the proposed accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is correct and no interference is required.

16. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. August 25, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.)

the learned trial court has rejected the application U/s 319 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist had lodged an F.I.R. on

11.10.2020 against Sonu, Machhla Devi, Arvind, Munna Lal and Rocky, which was registered as Case Crime No.615 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons had committed murder of informant's sister Anita. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial was proceeded and the prosecution examined P.W.-1 namely Rahul Kumar (informant/revisionist herein) on 18.01.2023 and this witness was cross examined by the defence. After the evidence of P.W.-1 was completed, he moved an application on 13.05.2024 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 along with other co-accused. The learned trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-1 and other materials brought on record, had rejected the application being Paper No.42- Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.01.2025, which is impugned in the present criminal revision.

3. Heard Sri Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for revisionist/informant has submitted that at the 2 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 time and date of incident the opposite party nos.2 to 4 were also accompanying with other co-accused and committed the murder of his sister Anita but the Investigating Officer did not submit a charge-sheet against them, whereas from the evidence of P.W.-1, the offence against opposite party nos.2 to 4 are fully made out and they are also liable to be tried along with other co-accused. The trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in rejecting the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the entire facts and circumstances of the case had not been properly considered by the trial court and the application was rejected in a very casual manner.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the trial court after considering the entire evidence of P.W.-1 has rightly passed the order dated 08.01.2025. From the evidence of P.W.-1 the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the incident was not established. It is further submitted that opposite party nos.2 to 4, who are Jeth, Jethani and Nandoi of deceased were named in the F.I.R. but during investigation the Investigating Officer has not found any reliable evidence against them, therefore, he had not submitted the charge-sheet against them. It is further submitted that P.W.-1 is real brother of the deceased and also interested witness and his evidence was not reliable. It is further submitted that the Police neither had filed charge-sheet against opposite party nos.2 to 4 nor has submitted the final report against them, as they are absconders.

6. Besides the above, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. for the State that in the cross-examination of the testimony of P.W.-1, which is at 112 of the paper book, the allegation of harassment with the deceased has only been made and for the same also, she did not make any complaint. In the statement of P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief, the common allegations against the proposed accused who are Jethani- Machhala Devi, Sonu- Husband, Arvind Jeth of the deceased have been made regarding maar-peet being committed by them with the deceased due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. It is admitted that the cause of death of the deceased is due to hanging and the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are not beneficiary of the dowry given by P.W.-1. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that the entire facts and circumstances of the case had been properly considered by the trial court while rejecting the application of P.W.- 1/revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial 3 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 court after prima-facie satisfaction that the involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 4 are not established from the evidence of P.W.-1, has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.

7. On above premise, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the powers given under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are discretionary powers of the court and are to be exercised sparingly and the trial court after having thoroughly examined the record found no substance in the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has rightly rejected the same.

8. Before considering the merits of the contention of rival parties it is necessary to refer to Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

9. By bare reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with other accused.

10. The view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in latest decision reported in (2019) 7 SCC 806 Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The relevant paragraph 10 is quoted herein below:- "10. The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be 4 CRLR No. 613 of 2025 exercised sparingly."

12. In a case law of Ram Singh vs. Ram Niwas and Ors 2009 (65) ACC 971 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary powers which should be exercised only when it appears to the Court that a person not being tried has committed an offence on the basis of evidence on record. Mere existence of prima-facie case not sufficient to exercise the revision. The Apex Court further observed that a person came to be summoned as an additional accused only when the Court reached at the conclusion that the evidence is available on record is such that, if left uncontroverted, it would lead to the conviction of accused.

13. For the purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. more than prima-facie and stronger evidence is required then that of framing of charge. In the case in hand the learned trial court is of the view that the evidence which is on record is not sufficient to convict the accused. General type of allegations have been levelled against the proposed accused. Moreover, in the cross- examination of P.W.-1, he admitted that the deceased would talk regularly with the complainant but she did not make any complaint to him. In view of all the evidence brought before the court, the learned trial court also recorded its finding that the evidence which is on record, if left unrebutted, is not sufficient to convict the proposed accused.

14. The powers U/s 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power, it has a discretion not to proceed, since the expression used is "may" and not "shall". The legislature apparently wanted to leave that discretion to the trial court so as to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction under this section. The expression "appears" indicates an application of mind by the court to the evidence that has come before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 of the Code or not.

15. In view of the evidence on record, the findings of trial court not to summon the proposed accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is correct and no interference is required.

16. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. August 25, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.)