1. Application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused based on testimony during examination-in-chief, despite their absence in initial complaints and Section 161 CrPC statements. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1472
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Satheesh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala And Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 45 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(S).3067 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-01-2025
The Court held that an application under Section 319 of the CrPC is not justified when the witness fails to name the accused in initial complaints or Section 161 statements and provides no explanation for such omission during the examination-in-chief.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, Section 319 - Criminal procedure - Second respondent's complaints did not name the appellants, nor did his examination-in-chief. The circumstances surrounding filing complaints did not justify the naming of appellants later - High Court's decision to proceed with application under Section 319 was set aside as unjustified. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Criminal Appeals - Appeal allowed as the factual basis for implicating appellants was insufficient to warrant inclusion under Section 319. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The second respondent filed multiple complaints without naming the appellants until his examination-in-chief, undermining the justification for invoking Section 319 of the Cr.PC.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the invocation of Section 319 unjustified due to lack of prior identification of the appellants in complaints or statements.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the sufficiency of evidence to justify naming appellants based on later statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that without prior identification or knowledge of the appellants from complaints or statements, the inclusion under Section 319 was unwarranted.
Result: The appeal was allowed and the previous orders set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an application under Section 319 CrPC is maintainable when the proposed accused were not named in initial complaints or statements under Section 161 CrPC. (Para 3 )
3. Court observed that proposed accused were not named in initial complaints or Section 161 CrPC statements, and no explanation was provided for this omission during examination-in-chief. (Para 3 )
4. An application under Section 319 CrPC is unjustified where proposed accused were not named in initial complaints or Section 161 CrPC statements without a valid explanation. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned judgment and order set aside — application under Section 319 CrPC dismissed — appeal allowed. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Under what circumstances is an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused unjustified?
An application is unjustified if the proposed accused were not named in the initial complaints or the statement under Section 161 CrPC, and the complainant fails to explain this omission during examination-in-chief. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Even according to the case of the second respondent, he filed multiple complaints complaining about the incident in respect of which the offence has been registered. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent accepted that neither in any of the complaints nor in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.PC"), the second respondent has even named the appellants. For the first time in his examination-in-chief before the Court, the second respondent has ascribed a role to the appellants. He has not stated in the examination-in-chief that when the complaints were filed by him, he was not aware of the involvement of the appellants. In view of this factual situation, the Court was not justified in allowing the application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC.
4. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 30th January, 2024 passed by the High Court and the order dated 3rd January, 2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby set aside and the application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC made by the first respondent stands dismissed.
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
