LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal question is about the circumstances under which a court can summon additional individuals as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly when those individuals were named in the First Information Report (FIR) but not in the charge sheet.
CASE TYPE: This case falls under criminal law, specifically dealing with the procedure for summoning additional accused in a criminal trial.
Case Name: S. Mohammed Ispahani vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others
[Judgment Date]: October 4, 2017
Can a court summon individuals as accused based solely on their mention in the FIR, or is stronger evidence required? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute and allegations of criminal activity during an eviction. This judgment clarifies the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered the judgment. Justice A.K. Sikri authored the opinion for the bench.
Case Background
Girdharilal Chandak, the de facto complainant, was a tenant of premises owned by Mehdi Ispahani, Ali Ispahani, and S. Mohammed Ispahani. The landlords initiated eviction proceedings, which resulted in an eviction order on February 26, 2007. The landlords then filed an execution petition, and the Small Causes Court, Chennai, appointed a bailiff on April 27, 2007, to take possession of the premises.
The de facto complainant filed an appeal against the eviction order. However, the court did not grant a stay on the execution of the eviction. The High Court of Judicature at Madras also dismissed the revision petition against the non-grant of stay on October 25, 2007. The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court on April 7, 2008.
On April 27, 2007, the bailiff visited the premises and evicted the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant alleged that 50-60 rowdy elements, along with a person claiming to be a police official, entered the premises, damaged property, and stole valuables.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 26, 2007 | Small Causes Court, Chennai, orders eviction of Girdharilal Chandak. |
| April 27, 2007 | Small Causes Court appoints a bailiff for delivery of possession. Bailiff visits the premises and evicts the de facto complainant. De facto complainant files a police complaint. |
| October 25, 2007 | High Court of Judicature at Madras dismisses the revision petition against non-grant of stay. |
| April 7, 2008 | Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court. |
| July 30, 2008 | Police register FIR No. 3/2008 based on the de facto complainant’s complaint. |
| September 19, 2013 | Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, frames charges against 15 persons, excluding the appellants. |
| August 17, 2015 | Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismisses the application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellants. |
| November 29, 2016 | High Court allows the revision petition, directing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to summon the appellants. |
| October 4, 2017 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order, restoring the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the police did not register a case based on the de facto complainant’s complaint. However, the High Court directed the police to register a case. Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet against 15 persons, but not the appellants.
During the trial, the de facto complainant passed away, and his son (the complainant) was examined as PW-1. The complainant named the appellants in his deposition. Following this, an application was filed under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants as additional accused. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed this application on August 17, 2015.
The High Court, on November 29, 2016, overturned the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s order and directed the summoning of the appellants. The High Court reasoned that the appellants were named in the FIR and in the testimony of PW-1.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense.
Section 319 of the CrPC states:
“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.”
The Supreme Court has clarified that the “evidence” referred to in Section 319 of the CrPC is the evidence recorded during the trial, not the material collected during the investigation. The court also emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists against the person to be summoned.
Arguments
The appellants, the landlords and the bailiff, argued that the steps they took were lawful and in accordance with the court orders. They emphasized that the de facto complainant was not present at the scene of the incident. They further contended that the police investigation found no involvement of the appellants and therefore, they were not charge-sheeted.
The appellants argued that the application under Section 319 CrPC was a belated attempt by the complainant, filed after the prosecution evidence was closed. They relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], which held that only the evidence that surfaces during the trial should be considered for summoning additional accused.
The complainant argued that the appellants were the ultimate beneficiaries of the illegal acts and that the stolen goods were recovered from the premises of the Ispahani Group of Companies, which belonged to the appellants. They further stated that PW-4’s testimony clearly implicated the landlords.
The complainant also contended that the non-filing of a protest petition was not relevant, as fresh evidence during the trial implicated the appellants. They relied on the judgment in Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others [(2002) 10 SCC 499], which held that Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even if no protest petition was filed.
The complainant also stated that the trial court failed to issue any notice to the complainant regarding the exclusion of the appellants from the charge sheet, in disregard of the judgment of this Court in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132].
The arguments were presented by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the landlords, and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the bailiff. The complainant was represented by his counsel.
Submissions of Parties
| Appellants’ Submissions | Complainant’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| The landlords had obtained a lawful eviction decree and followed due process. | The appellants were the beneficiaries of the illegal acts. |
| The appellants were not present at the scene of the incident. | Stolen goods were recovered from the appellants’ company premises. |
| Police investigation found no involvement of the appellants. | PW-4’s testimony implicated the landlords. |
| The application under Section 319 CrPC was a belated attempt. | Fresh evidence during the trial implicated the appellants, making the protest petition irrelevant. |
| Only evidence during trial should be considered as per Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. | Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even if no protest petition was filed as per Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others. |
| Trial court failed to issue notice regarding exclusion of appellants from charge sheet as per India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and directing the summoning of the appellants as additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in directing the summoning of the appellants under Section 319 CrPC. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect. | The High Court relied on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which are not independent evidence. The evidence led before the court did not establish the involvement of the appellants. Strong and cogent evidence was lacking. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench judgment clarified the scope of Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing that the power should be exercised based on evidence recorded during the trial, not just material collected during investigation.
- Bijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India: This case further explained the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case.
- India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the complainant regarding the requirement of notice to the complainant when a charge sheet is filed without implicating all the accused named in the FIR.
- Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others [(2002) 10 SCC 499] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even if the person’s name is in the FIR but not in the charge sheet.
- Suman v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(2010) 1 SCC 250] – Supreme Court of India: This case was also referred to by the complainant to support their arguments.
- Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – This section empowers the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense.
- Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – This provision was referred to in the departmental inquiry against the bailiff, concerning the procedure for delivery of possession of property.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How it was Used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India | Followed. The court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised based on strong and cogent evidence recorded during trial. |
| Bijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India | Followed. The court used this case to explain the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case. |
| India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132] – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The court noted that the issue of initial summoning was not challenged by the complainant, and the court was concerned with the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others [(2002) 10 SCC 499] – Supreme Court of India | Acknowledged. The court agreed with the proposition but emphasized that the question was whether the power under Section 319 CrPC was properly exercised in this case. |
| Suman v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(2010) 1 SCC 250] – Supreme Court of India | Not specifically discussed in detail, but mentioned as a case relied upon by the complainant. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Explained. The court clarified the scope and requirements for exercising power under this section. |
| Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Referred to in context of the departmental inquiry against the bailiff, concerning the procedure for delivery of possession of property. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | The landlords had obtained a lawful eviction decree and followed due process. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the landlords had obtained a decree and were executing it through the court. |
| Appellants | The appellants were not present at the scene of the incident. | Accepted. The Court noted that it was an admitted fact that the appellants were not present at the site of the incident. |
| Appellants | Police investigation found no involvement of the appellants. | Accepted. The Court highlighted that the police had not charge-sheeted the appellants after investigation. |
| Appellants | The application under Section 319 CrPC was a belated attempt. | Partially Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the application was filed after the prosecution evidence was closed, but focused on whether there was sufficient evidence. |
| Appellants | Only evidence during trial should be considered as per Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. | Accepted. The Court reiterated that only evidence during the trial could be considered for Section 319 CrPC. |
| Complainant | The appellants were the beneficiaries of the illegal acts. | Rejected. The Court found no evidence to support the claim of conspiracy or that the appellants were the beneficiaries of the incident. |
| Complainant | Stolen goods were recovered from the appellants’ company premises. | Not sufficient. The Court held that this fact alone was not enough to implicate the appellants under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Complainant | PW-4’s testimony implicated the landlords. | Insufficient. The Court found that PW-4’s statement was not sufficient for roping in the appellants. |
| Complainant | Fresh evidence during the trial implicated the appellants, making the protest petition irrelevant. | Rejected. The Court noted that the evidence during the trial was not strong enough to implicate the appellants. |
| Complainant | Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even if no protest petition was filed as per Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others. | Acknowledged. The court agreed with the proposition but emphasized that the question was whether the power under Section 319 CrPC was properly exercised in this case. |
| Complainant | Trial court failed to issue notice regarding exclusion of appellants from charge sheet as per India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka. | Distinguished. The court noted that the issue of initial summoning was not challenged by the complainant, and the court was concerned with the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India | The Court relied heavily on this judgment, reiterating that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised based on strong and cogent evidence recorded during trial. The Court emphasized that the evidence should be more than a prima facie case and should be such that if unrebutted, it would lead to conviction. |
| Bijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 SCC 706] – Supreme Court of India | The Court followed this case to explain the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case, reinforcing that the evidence must be strong and cogent. |
| India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132] – Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating that the issue of initial summoning was not challenged by the complainant, and the court was concerned with the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC. |
| Geeta Ram v. Vedi Ram and Others [(2002) 10 SCC 499] – Supreme Court of India | The Court acknowledged the proposition that Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even if the person’s name is in the FIR but not in the charge sheet. However, the Court emphasized that the question was whether the power under Section 319 CrPC was properly exercised in this case. |
| Suman v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(2010) 1 SCC 250] – Supreme Court of India | The Court did not specifically discuss this case in detail but mentioned it as a case relied upon by the complainant. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | The Court explained the scope and requirements for exercising power under this section, emphasizing that the power should be used sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists. |
| Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | The Court referred to this provision in the context of the departmental inquiry against the bailiff, noting that he was found guilty of dereliction of duty for not following the procedure for delivery of possession of property. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the power under this section is discretionary and should not be exercised casually.
The Court was particularly influenced by the following points:
- The absence of direct evidence implicating the appellants in the depositions of PW-1 and other witnesses.
- The fact that the appellants were not present at the site of the incident.
- The police investigation had not found any involvement of the appellants.
- The departmental inquiry against the bailiff found him guilty only of dereliction of duty, not of the criminal acts alleged in the FIR.
- The need to adhere to the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which requires a higher standard of evidence than a prima facie case.
Sentiment Analysis of Supreme Court’s Reasoning
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of strong and cogent evidence against the appellants in court testimonies. | 40% |
| Appellants’ absence at the scene of the incident. | 25% |
| Police investigation did not implicate the appellants. | 20% |
| Departmental inquiry against the bailiff found him guilty of dereliction of duty only. | 10% |
| Adherence to the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Aspects (e.g., presence at the scene, witness statements) | 60% |
| Legal Considerations (e.g., interpretation of Section 319 CrPC, precedents) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was that the High Court had erred in relying on the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC as independent evidence. The Court reiterated that the ‘evidence’ under Section 319 CrPC has to be the material brought before the Court during trial.
The Court noted that the complainant (PW-1) had not alleged any conspiracy on the part of the appellants. The Court also emphasized that the appellants were not present at the site of the incident.
The Court also considered the departmental inquiry against the bailiff, which found him guilty of dereliction of duty but not of the alleged criminal acts. However, the Court clarified that the departmental inquiry is not a determinative factor in criminal proceedings.
The Court concluded that there was no ‘strong and cogent evidence’ to summon the appellants as accused persons. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which requires a higher standard of evidence than a prima facie case.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab:
“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. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”
“Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.”
“In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- Courts cannot summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based solely on their mention in the FIR or statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
- The power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly.
- The evidence required to summon additional accused must be strong and cogent, and it must be the evidence that has been presented before the court during the trial.
- The standard of evidence required is higher than that for framing charges but lower than that for conviction.
This judgment reinforces the importance of due process and theneed for substantial evidence before implicating individuals in criminal proceedings. It clarifies that the power under Section 319 CrPC is not to be used as a tool to circumvent the investigation process or to bring in additional accused without sufficient justification based on the evidence presented during the trial. The judgment serves as a reminder that the courts must act judiciously and cautiously when exercising their power to summon additional accused.