Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Summoning Additional Accused: N. Manogar & Anr. vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors. (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 130

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

When can a court summon additional individuals as accused in an ongoing criminal case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the threshold of evidence required for such action. The case involved a challenge to a High Court order that had directed the summoning of additional accused persons, and the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the High Court’s decision. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to established legal principles when exercising discretionary powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on 20 April 2018, following a complaint by Respondent No. 2. The complaint alleged that Respondent No. 3 had assaulted the Complainant and her son at their home. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section(s) 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Complainant stated that Respondent No. 3 came to her home, inquired about her son, and then assaulted both of them. The FIR mentioned that Respondent No. 3 was accompanied by her husband and another ‘boy’, but no specific roles were attributed to them.

A chargesheet was filed against Respondent No. 3 under Section(s) 294(b), 323, 506(1) and 448 IPC, which was later altered to Section 452 IPC. The statements of the Complainant, other eyewitnesses, and the doctor who examined the injured only named Respondent No. 3.

Later, the Complainant filed an application before the High Court seeking re-investigation, where she named Appellant No. 1 (Respondent No. 3’s husband) and Appellant No. 2 (a relative of Respondent No. 3) for the first time. She alleged that they had trespassed into her home, hurled abuses and threatened to kill her son. The High Court allowed the Complainant to apply under Section 319 read with Section 216 of the CrPC before the Trial Court to implead the Appellants.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially partly allowed the Complainant’s application, impleading Appellant No. 1 as an accused, reasoning that as a policeman, he should have prevented the offense. However, the Trial Court rejected the prayer to implead Appellant No. 2, stating that there was no reason to identify him.

Both Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 filed revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitions on the ground that the Appellants were not given a notice in the Underlying Application and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, as per the decision in Jogendra Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 and Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92.

After the remand, the Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that there was no evidence to justify impleading the Appellants. The High Court, however, reversed this order, holding that the allegations in the complaint and statements under Section 161 of the CrPC disclosed the Appellants’ presence during the alleged offense and directed the Trial Court to implead them as accused.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with the power of the court to alter or add to any charge.
• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Empowers a court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense during the course of any inquiry or trial. It 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.”
• Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Relates to house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
• Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with obscene acts and songs.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Relates to punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Relates to punishment for criminal intimidation.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 319 of the CrPC is central to this case, particularly the threshold of evidence required to summon additional accused persons.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the High Court had incorrectly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• They contended that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, lacking specific details of their involvement in the alleged offense.
• They argued that there was no substantial evidence to suggest their participation in the crime.
• The Appellants relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra), which requires more than a prima facie case to summon additional accused persons.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondents argued that the High Court had correctly assessed the allegations in the complaint, the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses.
• They submitted that the evidence on record showed the involvement of the Appellants in the commission of the crime.
• The Respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 7 SCC 344, to support their claim that the High Court’s order was valid.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellants was in emphasizing the need for a higher threshold of evidence, as per the Hardeep Singh case, to invoke Section 319 of the CrPC, rather than a simple prima facie case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC and reversing the Trial Court’s order, which had refused to implead the Appellants as accused persons?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 – Supreme Court of India: This case was heavily relied upon by the court to reiterate the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that this power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence exists, not merely on a prima facie case.
• Jogendra Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the High Court while remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, emphasizing the need to provide a hearing to the parties before deciding on their impleadment.
• Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 389 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh case, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary.
• Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 7 SCC 344 – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the respondent to argue that the High Court order was valid.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Pertains to the power of the court to alter or add to any charge.
• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Empowers the court to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offense during the course of any inquiry or trial.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92*: The Supreme Court heavily relied on this authority, reiterating that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The court emphasized that a higher threshold of evidence is required, more than a prima facie case, to summon additional accused persons.
• Jogendra Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244: This case was referred to by the High Court for remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for providing a hearing to the parties.
• Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 389: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh case, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary.
• Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 7 SCC 344: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts and circumstances were different.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the need to adhere strictly to the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra), which emphasizes the need for strong and cogent evidence before summoning additional accused persons under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court was of the view that the High Court had not correctly applied these principles and that the Trial Court’s order was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity. The Court also noted that the allegations against the Appellants were vague and lacked specificity, and that the evidence did not meet the threshold required under Section 319 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was largely based on the interpretation of the law, specifically Section 319 of the CrPC and the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra). While the facts of the case were considered, the legal interpretation played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

The Court considered that the High Court’s decision was based on a prima facie satisfaction rather than the higher threshold of evidence required by Hardeep Singh (Supra). The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary and should be used sparingly.

The Court quoted from Hardeep Singh (Supra):

“Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

The Court further stated:

“Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near 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 the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The Court also observed:

“In the present case, the High Court overturned the Trial Court Order; and accordingly impleaded the Appellants’ as accused person(s) in the Underlying Proceedings on the satisfaction of a prima-facie finding that the materials on record i.e., (i) vague allegations emanating from the underlying complaint; (ii) the Complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the CrPC; and (iii) the Complainant’s examination-in-chief, are sufficient to proceed against the Appellant(s).”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly.
• A higher threshold of evidence, more than a prima facie case, is required to summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• Courts should not summon additional accused persons merely because they believe someone else might be guilty; strong and cogent evidence is necessary.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for a cautious and reasoned approach when exercising powers under Section 319 of the CrPC.
• This judgment clarifies the threshold of evidence required for summoning additional accused persons, providing guidance to lower courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, and only when there is strong and cogent evidence against a person, not merely a prima facie case. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and clarifies the threshold of evidence required for summoning additional accused persons. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In N. Manogar & Anr. vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors., the Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court’s order, which had directed the summoning of additional accused persons under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, requiring strong and cogent evidence, not merely a prima facie case. The judgment reinforces the need for a cautious approach when exercising this power and adheres to the principles established in Hardeep Singh (Supra).