Subjective Satisfaction Of Trial Court Not Indicated For Summoning U/S 319 CrPC: Allahabad HC Remands Matter For Fresh Consideration
The Allahabad High Court remanded a matter back to the trial Court after holding that the trial court did not indicate its subjective satisfaction as to why a person was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C
The High Court held that when a person summoned under Section 319 of the CrPC is not apprised about the specific sections under which they would be tried, they would be unable to defend themselves, thereby frustrating the principles of natural justice for that individual.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed, “The learned trial court while passing the impugned order…has not indicated its subjective satisfaction as to why the petitioner should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and under which sections the trial of the petitioner would be required. ”
Advocate Anand Mani Tripathi represented the applicant, while AGA Aniruddha Kumar Singh appeared for the opposite parties.
The petitioner argued that the gravity of Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be treated to be on a high pedestal and as per the trite law, the trial court can only exercise such powers sparingly and in rare circumstances.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 which held that while summoning a person against whom an F.I.R. has not been lodged and a charge-sheet has not been filed, a specific reason for summoning should be indicated in the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The Court quashed the impugned order of the trial court for the reason that the impugned order was “bereft of the reasoning and the subjective satisfaction of the court concerned.”
The Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and stated that if trial court wished to invoke its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., then it may do so with expedition.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Naseem v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (2024:AHC-LKO:11132)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Anand Mani Tripathi and Yugal Kishor Tripathi
Opposite Parties: AGA Aniruddha Kumar Singh