Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, regarding the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal arising from a special leave petition against the order of the High Court, which had upheld the summoning order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi.

The appellants, Jamin and Akil, had challenged the order summoning them as accused in a case where the trial against the primary accused had already concluded with a conviction in 2011. The High Court, in 2021, directed the Trial Court to reconsider an application under Section 319 CrPC filed by the complainant, leading to the issuance of the summoning order in 2024. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether such a summoning order was legally sustainable after the conclusion of the main trial.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Proceedings Against Company Director, Holds Mere Directorship Insufficient for Liability Under Negotiable Instruments Act

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2009 at Police Station Bilgram, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution initially filed a chargesheet against two individuals, Irshad and Irfan, while stating that the investigation against the remaining accused, including the appellants, was ongoing. The complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants for trial, which was rejected by the Trial Court in 2010. The complainant then pursued a revision petition before the High Court, which directed reconsideration of the application after cross-examination of key witnesses.

A second application under Section 319 CrPC was filed in 2010 but was again rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the evidence on record did not justify summoning the appellants. The complainant challenged this rejection in the High Court through another revision petition, which remained pending until 2021. Meanwhile, the trial against the primary accused resulted in their conviction and life imprisonment in 2011.

In 2021, the High Court, despite being aware of the trial's conclusion, set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of the application under Section 319 CrPC. It observed:

“The mere fact that chargesheet had not been filed against the proposed accused despite there being an FIR against them cannot be a ground for not proceeding against them under Section 319 of the CrPC.”

Additionally, the High Court held:

“A person not named in the FIR, or named but not charge-sheeted, can still be summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC if the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has also committed the offence and can be tried along with the other accused.”

The High Court directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application within three months. Acting upon this direction, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, issued the summoning order in 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the summoning order was illegal as it was passed 13 years after the trial’s conclusion, rendering the Trial Court functus officio. They relied on the precedent set in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, arguing that summoning orders must be issued before pronouncement of the final judgment. Additionally, they argued that the High Court’s 2021 order was passed without issuing notice to the appellants, violating the principles of natural justice.

The respondents, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended that Section 319(4) CrPC allows a fresh trial against the summoned accused and that the summoning order was justified given the new judicial determination of their alleged involvement. The prosecution stated that the primary accused had been convicted based on evidence that implicated the appellants and that the judicial process should not allow the escape of potentially culpable individuals.

The Supreme Court examined the legislative history and judicial precedents on Section 319 CrPC. It stated:

“Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.”

Regarding revisional jurisdiction, the Court stated:

“Once the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, decides to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and passes an order to rectify any errors, such order replaces the order of the Trial Court.”

The Court stated that the timing of the summoning order is crucial, explaining:

“Although the summoning order was passed after the conclusion of trial, it should be deemed to have been passed on the date when the Trial Court first rejected the application under Section 319 CrPC, due to the High Court’s revisional order.”

The Supreme Court also explained the scope of a summoned accused’s right to be heard, stating:

“A person who has been summoned under Section 319 CrPC does not have an inherent right to be heard before being added as an accused. Such a right accrues only if the person had been discharged in the same proceedings prior to the commencement of trial.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer, Holds Higher Standards of Probity Required for Judiciary

The Supreme Court held that the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in 2024 was legally sustainable. It held that the High Court had correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction and that the Trial Court’s order summoning the appellants should stand. The Court concluded:

“For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.”

The Court further directed:

“The Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps in furtherance of the summoning order dated 21.02.2024 to ensure that the appellants are produced before the court to face the trial.”

“Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate

For the Respondent State: Shaurya Sahay, Advocate

Case Title: Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 330

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

[Read/Download order]