High Court · 2025

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that daughter of the revisionist, namely, Km. Pooja was married with Nitin alias Babu on 13.07.2016. It is further stated that husband Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin were demanding dowry from the deceased due to which, they used to assault the deceased. It was further stated that on 28.11.2021 at about 8:00 a.m. devar of the deceased namely, Vipin had informed the revisionist (complainant) that his daughter has committed suicide. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against all the opposite parties, namely, Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin. The investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed only against Nitin alias Babu, husband of the deceased but all the other -accused persons including Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin were excluded during the investigation.

4. During the trial, the revisionist who is the complainant of the case was examined as PW-1. On the basis of his statement an application under Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (319 Cr.P.C.) was filed seeking to issue process against the other family members, who had been excluded by the police during investigation. During trial, in examination-in- chief, revisionist Ram Sagar (PW-1) had deposed before the court that his daughter was done to death on 28.11.2021 by Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin on account of the fact that they did not get sufficient dowry.

5. It is noticed that even in the first information report as well as examination-in-chief of the revisionist, vague allegations have been levelled against the persons, who are said to be included as accused during the said trial.

6. The trial court has also considered the material available on record and also material available in the charge sheet, according to which, the husband of the deceased namely, Nitin alias Babu was working in Saudi Arabia and used to send money every month in the account of his wife (deceased) and father-in-law of the deceased used to withdraw the money from the account of his daughter in law (deceased) and give to daughter in law (deceased). Accordingly, there was sufficient material on record even as per the statement of the revisionist (complainant) that there was no interference in the living of the deceased by the other family members, who though were living in the same house and some of them even had separate kitchens.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and material available on record that the trial court did not find sufficient material to allow the application under Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (319 Cr.P.C.). Though the law with regard to the same is clear as has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab report in (2014) 3 SCC 92, which reads as under:- Question (iv)—What is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 CrPC?

93. Section 319(1) CrPC empowers the court to proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of offence, though not an accused before the court. The word "appear" means "clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved". It imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof.

94. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1963 SC 1094 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 178], a four-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with the meaning of the word "appear". The Court held that the appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is "seems". It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. In Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas [(2009) 14 SCC 25 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1278], a two-Judge Bench of this Court was again required to examine the importance of the word "appear" as appearing in the section. The Court held that for the fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that a person had committed an offence, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance enabling it to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case.

95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321 : (2013) 11 Scale 23], held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned", as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons.

97. In Mohd. Shafi [Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : AIR 2007 SC 1899] , this Court held that it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 CrPC, it must arrive at a satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that daughter of the revisionist, namely, Km. Pooja was married with Nitin alias Babu on 13.07.2016. It is further stated that husband Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin were demanding dowry from the deceased due to which, they used to assault the deceased. It was further stated that on 28.11.2021 at about 8:00 a.m. devar of the deceased namely, Vipin had informed the revisionist (complainant) that his daughter has committed suicide. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against all the opposite parties, namely, Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin. The investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed only against Nitin alias Babu, husband of the deceased but all the other -accused persons including Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin were excluded during the investigation.

4. During the trial, the revisionist who is the complainant of the case was examined as PW-1. On the basis of his statement an application under Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (319 Cr.P.C.) was filed seeking to issue process against the other family members, who had been excluded by the police during investigation. During trial, in examination-in- chief, revisionist Ram Sagar (PW-1) had deposed before the court that his daughter was done to death on 28.11.2021 by Nitin alias Babu, Jeth Ram Narayan, Devar Vipin, Omrani wife of Ram Narayan and Shalini wife of Vipin on account of the fact that they did not get sufficient dowry.

5. It is noticed that even in the first information report as well as examination-in-chief of the revisionist, vague allegations have been levelled against the persons, who are said to be included as accused during the said trial.

6. The trial court has also considered the material available on record and also material available in the charge sheet, according to which, the husband of the deceased namely, Nitin alias Babu was working in Saudi Arabia and used to send money every month in the account of his wife (deceased) and father-in-law of the deceased used to withdraw the money from the account of his daughter in law (deceased) and give to daughter in law (deceased). Accordingly, there was sufficient material on record even as per the statement of the revisionist (complainant) that there was no interference in the living of the deceased by the other family members, who though were living in the same house and some of them even had separate kitchens.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and material available on record that the trial court did not find sufficient material to allow the application under Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (319 Cr.P.C.). Though the law with regard to the same is clear as has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab report in (2014) 3 SCC 92, which reads as under:- Question (iv)—What is the degree of satisfaction required for invoking the power under Section 319 CrPC?

93. Section 319(1) CrPC empowers the court to proceed against other persons who appear to be guilty of offence, though not an accused before the court. The word "appear" means "clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved". It imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof.

94. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1963 SC 1094 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 178], a four-Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with the meaning of the word "appear". The Court held that the appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is "seems". It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. In Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas [(2009) 14 SCC 25 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1278], a two-Judge Bench of this Court was again required to examine the importance of the word "appear" as appearing in the section. The Court held that for the fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that a person had committed an offence, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance enabling it to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case.

95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321 : (2013) 11 Scale 23], held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned", as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons.

97. In Mohd. Shafi [Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : AIR 2007 SC 1899] , this Court held that it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 CrPC, it must arrive at a satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.