Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 2038
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Rajjan Lal @ Rajanu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6108 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, AOR Ms. Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, Adv. Mr. Arth Arora, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Gupta, Adv. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv. Mr. Deepak Rana, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Pichauri, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dubey, Adv.
The invocation of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. requires clear evidence of involvement in the commission of an offense, not mere accusations, which lacked merit in this case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Application under Section 319 for summoning four persons rejected by High Court - Complainant alleged collision caused by vehicle occupied by five individuals but investigation only found driver to be involved - Trial Court found insufficient evidence to link other accused to the crime - Court held that allegations were not enough to invoke Section 319 without evidence of involvement during collision. (Paras 1, 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while returning from his farmhouse on a bicycle with his son, alleged that the vehicle deliberately dashed against them, which led to injuries. FIR named five individuals, but only one was charged in the investigation, and the trial progressed without evidence against the others.
Findings of Court:
The court stated that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence linking the other individuals to criminal intent or involvement in the collision, affirming the trial's focus on the evidence against the driver only.
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court erred in not summoning the additional accused under Section 319 and whether mere presence constituted criminal involvement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 319's invocation requires clear evidence of involvement in the offense, not just allegations, affirming that the petition lacked merit.
Result: Special Leave Petition rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of section 319 application for summoning additional accused. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's findings on investigation and evidence regarding involvement. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. argument for summoning other accused based on prior enmity. (Para 4) |
| 4. rejection of the special leave petition due to lack of merit. (Para 8) |
| 5. disposition of pending applications. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court which confirmed the rejection of an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’] for summoning four other persons named in the FIR, in addition to the one arrayed as accused, who was the driver of the vehicle, which caused the accident.
2. The allegation which led to the registration of the FIR was that the complainant, the petitioner herein, while returning from his farmhouse on a bicycle, with his son riding pillion, a jeep in which five named persons were sitting dashed against the bicycle deliberately, thus resulting in injuries to both the complainant and his son. The FIR is seen at Annexure P2. The final report was filed by the police only against the alleged driver of the vehicle.
3. This Court had expressed an apprehension on 23.09.2025 as to the charge sheet having been filed against only one person while there were five accused named in the FIR. Learned Government Advocate took time for an independent and objective revisit of the investigation at a higher level. Today, the learned Government Advocate has produced an investigation report, which clearly indicates that the original investigation revealed only the involvement of the driver of the vehicle and hence the charge sheet was filed against the one accused arrayed and the other let off. The further investigation also came to the same conclusion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that there was a prior enmity by reason of which the collision was stage managed. The petitioner and his son had clearly stated before police that they had seen all the five named persons sitting in the vehicle. The learned Additional Sessions Court and the High Court clearly erred in having not summoned the other accused under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Their innocence or otherwise can be decided only in a full-fledged trial.
5. We were informed that the trial has proceeded considerably. In fact, we notice from the order of the Additional Sessions Court produced as Annexure P-9 that PWs 1 and 2, the complainant and his son, were examined before the Court and their deposition was only to the extent of the sole accused arrayed in the charge sheet having driven the vehicle. The mere presence of the other four do not establish any involvement.
6. We also looked at the FIR and the statement of the two eyewitnesses which indicate that while they were proceeding to the farmhouse, they saw the vehicle with five identifiable persons sitting inside. It was on their way back to their residence that the collision was alleged. There is no statement that at the time of collision, the other four were inside the vehicle. Even if they were inside the vehicle, as rightly found by the Trial Court, there is nothing to suggest that there was a criminal intent on the part of the four persons travelling in the vehicle.
7. We cannot but notice that the trial has proceeded considerably and hence the complainant was aware that the charge was laid only against the driver of the vehicle. The complainant made no efforts to make a protest complaint as provided under the Cr. P.C. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is a suo motu power conferred on the Court, which though could be invoked by the complainant, it would depend upon the satisfaction of the Court based on the evidence led at the time of trial. The Additional Sessions Court, which has recorded the evidence, found no cause to invoke the suo motu power under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C.; which cannot be lightly invoked on the
