Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Juhru & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Karim & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.549 of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1658 of 2020]
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, AOR Mr. Raunaq Dalal, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of additional accused to face trial – FIR registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of IPC – Power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely – Existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused to face trial – FIR registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of IPC – Power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely – Existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused – Ordinarily, summoning of a person at very threshold of trial may be discouraged and trial court must evaluate evidence against persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial – In absence of any credible evidence, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked – Alleged offence is grave and heinous in nature – Long arms of law must find out whether any person is guilty of abetting or taking away precious life of a young girl – However, while summoning of Appellant No. 1 sustains, but that of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 will be farfetched and they cannot be subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion – High Court order under challenge accordingly set aside qua Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. (Paras 11, 17, 21 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Instant Criminal Appeal originates from a judgment dated 27.01.2020 whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (in short ‘High Court’), while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, has ordered the summoning of Appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as additional accused.
Only issue that falls for consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence against Appellants to summon them as additional accused?
Findings of Court:
In the absence of any authentic evidence to bring them in close proximity of reported crime, it would be unjustified to call upon Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional accused in this case.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Surya Kant, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal originates from a judgment dated 27.01.2020 whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (in short ‘High Court’), while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, has ordered the summoning of the Appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) as additional accused.

A. FACTS

3. Briefly stated the facts are that FIR No. 270 dated 09.07.2017 was registered at Police Station Tauru, District Nuh under Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) on the statement of Karim Respondent No. 1 to the effect that the marriage of his deceased sister (Rukseena) was solemnised on 04.12.2016 with one Aamir. An Alto car, Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 3 kg of silver, 30 grams of gold, furniture and other household items were allegedly given to Aamir and his family members as dowry at the time of marriage. The family of Aamir comprised of Akhlima (mother), Juhru (father) – Appellant No.1, Sonam (sister) – Appellant No.2 and Rijwan (brother-in-law) – Appellant No.3. The complainant further alleged that the family of Aamir was dissatisfied with the dowry and subjected the deceased to continuous torture and harassment. Respondent No.1 and his family tried to settle the matter with Aamir and his family but all their efforts proved futile. Respondent No. 1 was telephonically informed on 09.07.2017 that the deceased had hung herself to death.

4. The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material against the Appellants in the course of investigation and Challan was filed only against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, who are now facing trial.

5. During the trial, Respondent No. 1 stepped into the witness box as PW1 on 01.03.2018 and reiterated the allegations levelled against all the accused persons, including the Appellants. Soon thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court to summon the Appellants as additional accused.

6. The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the extraordinary power vested under section 319 Cr.P.C ought to be exercised only if the evidence adduced on record strongly indicates the possible involvement of the person(s) aimed to be prosecuted. The Trial Court further opined that it did not appear from the deposition of Respondent No. 1 or from other material on record that the persons sought to be summoned had committed any offence for which they could be tried together with accused Aamir and Akhlima.

7. The aggrieved Respondent No. 1, approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and vide impugned order dated 27.01.2020 his petition was allowed and the appellants were summoned to face trial. The High Court observed that the FIR as well as the testimony of Respondent No. 1 during the trial revealed that the insinuations against the Appellants were exactly the same as those attributed to the accused already facing trial. Hence, in the absence of any distinguishable features, the Appellants were also liable to be tried along with Aamir and Akhlima. The High Court further viewed that there existed sufficient grounds for summoning the Appellants as additional accused.

8. Discontented with their summoning by the High Court, the Appellants are before us.

B. CONTENTIONS

9. Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehemently contended that the High Court has committed a grave error of law in not appreciating that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly only if the evidence vividly points out the possible involvement of the person(s) proposed to be prosecuted. There is not an iota of evidence against the appellants to glean a conclusion of their involvement. Further, the fact that the Appellants were found innocent during the course of two-fold investigation has not been adequately considered by the