Supreme Court Restored Summons Under Section 319 CrPC and Directed Expedited Trial

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal by the complainant challenging a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed a trial court order summoning a non‑charge‑sheeted person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dispute concerned whether evidence adduced during trial warranted impleading Rajendra Prasad Yadav as an accused in a murder case arising from an incident on 29 November 2017.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 23 July 2024 and restored the Sessions Court order dated 28 September 2023 summoning Rajendra Prasad Yadav under Section 319 CrPC. The Court held that the power under Section 319 was "an enabling provision" intended to ensure "no guilty person should be allowed to escape the process of law" and had to be exercised on the basis of "cogent material" adduced during inquiry or trial, but "with utmost caution" so as not to be used to harass individuals. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The foregoing discussion would reveal the following statutory requisites for summoning any person not being the accused: (a) such person has committed an offence; (b) his complicity is revealed from the evidence collected during inquiry or trial; and (c) for such offence, he can be tried together with the accused already facing trial." The judgment further explained that the High Court erred by undertaking a "mini‑trial" on affidavits and by applying a standard of scrutiny appropriate to conviction rather than the stricter‑than‑prima‑facie yet non‑conviction standard required at the stage of Section 319.

Background

Two FIRs arose from the same incident. The first FIR, lodged by Shiv Baran, charged four persons under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 IPC after his brother died of injuries allegedly inflicted when assailants entered his house. The police filed a chargesheet dated 24 February 2018 against two accused — Dinesh Yadav and Shiv Murat Yadav — excluding Rajendra Prasad Yadav. During trial, eyewitnesses PW1 (the first informant), PW2 and PW3 deposed to the presence of Rajendra at the scene, with specific references to him being armed with a baton. On that basis the complainant applied under Section 319 CrPC to implead Rajendra; the Trial Court initially rejected the application but, on remand from the High Court, allowed it by order dated 28 September 2023.

Rajendra challenged the summoning in the Allahabad High Court which quashed the order, reasoning that PW1 had not ascribed any role to him, that testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 did not sufficiently implicate Rajendra, and that there was no specific description of the manner of occurrence or any established motive. The High Court treated the material with a standard the Supreme Court found akin to a trial‑stage scrutiny.

Before the Supreme Court the State and the appellant relied on settled precedents including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Labhuji Amratji Thakor, S. Mohammed Ispahani and Omi v. State of M.P., emphasizing that statements made in examination‑in‑chief constituted evidence for the purposes of Section 319 and that the trial court could proceed to summon a person not named in the chargesheet if the evidence adduced before it revealed complicity. The Supreme Court found that the eyewitness evidence, though to be tested at trial, prima facie implicated Rajendra and that the High Court had erred in conducting a mini‑trial on affidavits. The appeal was allowed, the impugned High Court order was set aside and the trial court's summoning order was restored. The Court directed all parties to appear before the Trial Court on 28 August 2025 and ordered that the trial be completed within 18 months, disposing of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 860; Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3993 of 2025) Case Title: Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment