Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Summoning Accused Under Section 319 CrPC: Ajay Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 22

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court refuse to examine the legality of an order summoning an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because subsequent proceedings related to that order have been initiated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the scope of revisional jurisdiction in such cases. The core issue revolves around whether a High Court can dismiss a criminal revision against a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC based on subsequent proceedings related to the same order. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves two appellants, Ajay Kumar @ Bittu and another, who were initially accused in two FIRs (175/2015 and 176/2016) at Police Station Kotwali, Laksar, Haridwar. FIR 175/2015 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). FIR 176/2016 was registered under similar sections of the IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet in which the appellants were not named as accused. However, during the trial, the informant and another witness implicated the appellants, leading to an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon them as additional accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Session Judge rejected the application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants. However, the High Court, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others versus State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368, directed the Session Judge to reconsider the application. Subsequently, the Session Judge allowed the application and summoned the appellants. Following this, bailable warrants and then non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellants for non-appearance, and notices were issued to their sureties under Section 446 of the CrPC. The appellants then filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court against the order of the Session Judge summoning them, which was dismissed.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (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 for which he could be tried together with the accused. The Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, has clarified that this power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be used sparingly. The court has held that the evidence required to invoke Section 319 CrPC should be more than a prima facie case, but less than what would lead to conviction if unrebutted. The court in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 held:

“105. 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.”

“106. 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 un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. 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.”

Arguments

The appellants challenged the order of the Additional Session Judge summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court, however, dismissed the revision filed by the appellants. The High Court did not examine the correctness of the summoning order of the Additional District Judge under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision on the basis of a subsequent fact i.e. order dated 18.09.2019 by which notice has been issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that since the proceedings in pursuance of Section 319 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated, a challenge to the summoning order would not be tenable till the order dated 18.09.2019 subsists.

The High Court observed that the order passed by the Court under Section 446, was not brought on record. Hence, the Court was of the view that there was a concealment by not placing the order on record. The High Court further observed that since the proceedings in pursuance to allowing the application under Section 319 CrPC has already been initiated, in which the revisionist has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Revisional court, in which the order dated 18.09.2019 has been passed, the Revision is to be dismissed.

The appellants argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the revision based on subsequent proceedings under Section 446 CrPC. They contended that the validity of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC should have been examined on its merits, irrespective of subsequent developments. They also contended that the High Court failed to consider that one of the appellants was a juvenile at the time of the incident.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the Criminal Revision against the order dated 17.08.2019 by which the appellants were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the ground that subsequent proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. had been initiated?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Supreme Court): The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court elaborated on the contours of Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing that the power under this provision is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly. The Court clarified that the evidence required to invoke Section 319 CrPC should be more than a prima facie case but less than what would lead to conviction if unrebutted.
• Rajesh and others versus State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 (Supreme Court): A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh regarding the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC. This judgment was relied upon by the High Court in its initial order directing the Session Judge to reconsider the application under Section 319 CrPC.
• Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 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 for which he could be tried together with the accused.
• Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the procedure when a bond has been forfeited.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the Criminal Revision based on the subsequent proceedings under Section 446 CrPC. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court should have examined the correctness of the order dated 17.08.2019, by which the appellants were summoned under Section 319 CrPC, on its merits. The Supreme Court stated that the subsequent proceedings under Section 446 CrPC could not be a ground to avoid examining the validity of the summoning order.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the High Court to consider the Criminal Revision afresh in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court also noted that one of the grounds taken in the appeal was that appellant No. 1 was a juvenile at the date of the incident, and this ground also needed to be considered by the High Court.

Treatment of Submissions

How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92* to reiterate that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary. The Court also referred to Rajesh and others vs. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368* which reiterated the same ratio. The court explained that the subsequent proceedings under Section 446 CrPC could not be a ground to avoid examining the validity of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a court’s revisional jurisdiction must not be curtailed by subsequent procedural events. The court emphasized that the correctness of the order summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC should be examined on its own merits. The court held that the High Court’s approach of dismissing the revision based on the subsequent notice under Section 446 CrPC was incorrect and that the High Court should have examined the correctness of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot dismiss a criminal revision against a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC merely because subsequent proceedings related to that order have been initiated.
• The validity of a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC must be examined on its own merits, irrespective of subsequent procedural developments.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should not be curtailed by subsequent procedural events.
• The High Court should consider all grounds raised in the revision, including the juvenility of an accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the High Court to consider the Criminal Revision afresh in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot dismiss a criminal revision against a summoning order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) merely because subsequent proceedings related to that order have been initiated. This judgment reinforces the principle that the validity of a summoning order must be examined on its merits and that subsequent procedural events cannot curtail the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar @ Bittu & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. clarifies that a High Court cannot dismiss a criminal revision against a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC based solely on subsequent proceedings under Section 446 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the validity of the summoning order must be examined on its merits. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed it to reconsider the revision, ensuring that the revisional jurisdiction is not curtailed by subsequent procedural events.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Category: Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Category: Section 446, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Summoning of Accused

Child Category: Revisional Jurisdiction

FAQ

Q: What is Section 319 of the CrPC?

A: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offense for which he could be tried together with the accused.

Q: Can a High Court dismiss a revision against a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC based on subsequent proceedings?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court cannot dismiss a revision against a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC merely because subsequent proceedings related to that order have been initiated. The validity of the summoning order must be examined on its own merits.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case?

A: The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that a court’s revisional jurisdiction must not be curtailed by subsequent procedural events. It ensures that the validity of a summoning order under Section 319 CrPC is examined on its merits.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct the High Court to do in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the High Court to consider the Criminal Revision afresh in accordance with the law, ensuring that the revisional jurisdiction is not curtailed by subsequent procedural events.

Q: What is Section 446 of the CrPC?

A: Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the procedure when a bond has been forfeited.