SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 462

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Jamin & Anr - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) NO. 6320 of 2024)
Decided on : 06-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shaantanu Devansh, Adv. Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv. Mr. Anshuman, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.

The High Court's revisional order allowing summoning of additional accused under Section 319 relates back to the original rejection date, permitting a fresh trial despite the main trial's conclusion.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused - High Court's revisional jurisdiction - The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Section 319, directing reconsideration after trial conclusion - The summoning order was deemed to relate back to the original rejection date, allowing fresh trial for summoned accused. (Paras 115-116)

(B) Right to be heard - Proposed accused summoned under Section 319 do not have a right to be heard at the initial application stage, but may have a right in revisional proceedings if prejudiced. (Paras 110-112)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were summoned as accused under Section 319 after the trial against original accused concluded. The High Court intervened to rectify a patent illegality in the Trial Court's rejection of the application to summon additional accused.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's order to reconsider the application under Section 319 was valid and related back to the original rejection, allowing for a separate trial for the newly summoned accused.

Issues: Whether the High Court was correct in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Trial Court's rejection of the application under Section 319 after the trial had concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's order rectified a patent illegality and allowed for the summoning of additional accused, which was deemed to have occurred before the trial's conclusion, ensuring justice was served.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX

A.

FACTUAL MATRIX

B.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

C.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

D.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

E.

ANALYSIS

(i) Legislative history, ingredients and scope of Section 319 of the CrPC

(ii) Stage at which power under Section 319 of the CrPC can be exercised.

(iii) Meaning of the expression “could be tried together with the accused”

(iv) Peculiar facts of the present case not fully covered by the guidelines issued by this Court in its decisions in Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Hardeep Singh

(v) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revision jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no. 2 under section 319 of the CrPC?

(vi) The order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revision jurisdiction would relate back to and replace the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application under Section 319 of the CrPC

(vii) Right of the proposed accused to be heard at the stage of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC

F.

CONCLUSION

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 01.04.2024 in Criminal Application No. 2399 of 2024 filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”) by which the High Court rejected the application and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning the appellants herein as accused under Section 319 of the CrPC in the Session Trial No. 582 of 2009.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On 14.04.2009, the respondent no. 2 herein lodged a First Information Report (“FIR”) No. 99/2009 in the Police Station Bilgram, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) respectively against five persons namely Irshad, Irfan, Abdul, Jamin and Akil in connection with the murder of his brother. The FIR alleged that the appellants herein namely, Jamin and Akil exhorted the other co-accused to kill the deceased and as a result of such instigation, the said co-accused fired at the deceased using their pistols resulting into his death.

4. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet no. 07/2009 dated 14.07.2009 against two accused persons, namely Irshad and Irfan for the alleged offence. The police by way of Parcha No. CD 16 dated 14.07.2009 informed the court concerned that the investigation qua the remaining accused persons, namely Abdul, Jamin and Akil was ongoing. The chargesheet contained a list of 18 witnesses which the State proposed to examine in support of the charges.

5. On 27.10.2009, the Trial Court framed charge for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC respectively against the accused persons who were named in the chargesheet who in turn pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. While the trial against the chargesheeted accused persons namely Irshad and Irfan was in progress, the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC praying to summon the other three persons named in the FIR to face the trial along with the chargesheeted accused persons.

7. On 29.01.2010, the Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that a person could be summoned by the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC provided that there is cogent and reliable evidence indicating towards the complicity of such person in the commission of an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused persons already put to trial. The Trial Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 respectively had yet not been cross-examined and i

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top