Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court, on January 3, 2025, dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, which upheld the Trial Court's summoning of two Petitioners as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the Trial Court's jurisdiction to summon individuals named in the FIR but not included in the charge sheet, based on subsequent evidence.

The case arose from an FIR registered under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against seven individuals, including the Petitioners. Although the Petitioners were initially named in the FIR, they were not charge-sheeted as the Investigating Officer filed a closure report concerning their involvement. During the trial, the First Informant provided testimony implicating the Petitioners by attributing specific overt acts to them. Based on this oral evidence, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed to summon the Petitioners as accused, which the Trial Court allowed.

The Petitioners challenged the summoning order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that the Investigating Officer’s closure report had exonerated them. However, the High Court dismissed their revision petition, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The Petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, seeking relief.

The Supreme Court, dismissing the Petition, observed that the Trial Court possesses “undoubted jurisdiction” under Section 319 CrPC to summon individuals to face trial if evidence presented during proceedings establishes a prima facie case against them. The Bench stated, “The trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person, even though initially named in the F.I.R. as an accused but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.”

Senior Advocate Anil Kaushik, representing the Petitioners, argued that the Trial Court’s reliance on the First Informant’s testimony was misplaced, given that the Investigating Officer had found no role for the Petitioners in the alleged offense. However, the Bench dismissed this contention, stating, “When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance, then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative, then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.”

The Court further explained that Section 319 CrPC empowers the Trial Court to summon any person, not already an accused, to face trial if evidence presented during the proceedings warrants their involvement. The Bench stated that the Trial Court is not bound by the findings of the Investigating Officer and can exercise its discretion independently based on the evidence before it. “The Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the Trial Court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge sheet, it can do so,” the Bench noted.

The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Bench remarked, “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed no error, not to speak of any error of law in passing the impugned order.” Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 17781 of 2024 
Bench Composition: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

[View/Download order]