Trial Courts Cannot Implead A Person As An Accused U/S 319 CrPC On The Basis Of Vague Findings: Madhya Pradesh HC

Section 319 CrPC provides for the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

In the present matter, a criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC was filed challenging an order under Section 319 of CrPC by the trial Court, where it made the petitioners accused under Section 319 CrPC and issued notice for separate trial against the petitioners.

It is pertinent to note that at the time of passing the impugned judgement, the trial Court convicted and acquitted the accused persons. Where the appellants were convicted under Section 148, 307/149, 333/149 and 394 of IPC and the co-accused were acquitted from all the charges.

Consequentially, a bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed, “…the learned trial Court, without assigning sufficient ground for substratum of constituting the said offence, has wrongly observed that the role of the petitioners is suspicious. No specific or cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial as to how the petitioners are involved in the said offence. The reasoning that the police authority is deliberately trying to save the petitioners from the allegations of the offence, is having no merit. Virtually, such type of vague and obscure finding is not sufficient to implead any person as an accused and to direct them for facing a separate trial”.

The bench further clarified on the basis of facts and settled propositions of law, that the extraordinary jurisdiction can only be exercised by trial courts this, summoning a person as an accused, when the trial Court, after analyzing the evidence available on record strongly feels that there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence available on record and it is expedient for justice to summon him as accused.

Advocate Himanshu Thakur appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Nisha Jaiswal appeared for the State.

It was argued by the petitioners in the matter that they were made accused at early stage, however, the prosecution filed the final report under Section 173(8) of CrPC to the effect that they have no role in the crime.

It was further submitted that the cognizance under Section 319 of CrPC was taken against the petitioners whereas such type of evidence was not admissible and that they were foisted as accused only on the ground of suspicion.

Therefore, the bench after considering the submissions referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court in Juhru and others v. Karim and Another AIR 2023 SCC 1160 , where it was held that the power of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC should not be exercised routinely, and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non for summoning an additional accused.

Accordingly, the bench while allowing the revision petition, disposed of the matter.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Himanshu Thakur

Respondent: Advocate Nisha Jaiswal

Cause Title: Majid @ Bablu v. Imran