Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Ravi Shankar Pati Dubey S/o Nawal Kishore Pati Dubey - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36683 of 2016
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Kumar
The court reinforced that stronger evidence than mere probability is essential for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and that an accused must be given a hearing before being added to the trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and 319 - Quashing of order - Petition filed to quash order summoning petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The court noted that the evidence against the petitioner was not specific or strong enough to warrant summoning - It was emphasized that substantial evidence is requisite for invoking Section 319 - Existence of right to be heard before summoning was underscored. (Paras 4 and 10)
(B) Legal standard for summoning under Section 319 - The test requires stronger evidence beyond mere probability and must be more than prima facie for summoning an accused. (Paras 2, 4, and 5)
(C) Juvenility - The court noted that the petitioner claimed to be a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence, necessitating a hearing and verification of such claim prior to further proceedings. (Para 6)
(D) Right of Accused - It was stated that an accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before being summoned, as established in previous judgments. (Paras 4 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was named in an FIR but was not charged initially. After prosecution efforts to add him to the case were rejected, further attempts were made leading to this petition to quash the summoning order. Evidence against him was described as vague. (Paras 3 and 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the summoning order and emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to summon an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the importance of ensuring the accused's right to a hearing. (Paras 10 and 12)
Issues: The primary issues addressed included the adequacy of evidence for summoning under Section 319 and the rights of an accused before being added to the proceedings. (Paras 4 and 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the strength of evidence must be significantly higher for invoking Section 319 than for mere cognizance, reaffirming the necessity of substantial proof for an accused's summoning in court. (Paras 5 and 10)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was named in fir but not charged initially. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. opposition by prosecution regarding the invocation of section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 3 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. importance of robust evidence to summon under section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's responsibility to address juvenile status. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 5. facts surrounding the fir and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 9) |
| 6. court finds no merit in the petition. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Heard Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP appearing for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.) with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2008, arising out of Darauli P.S. Case No. 97 of 2007, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 of the Cr.P.C and consequently directed the petitioner to be summoned to face the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was named in the FIR but after investigation, he was not sent up by the police and the concerned Magistrate also did not take cognizance against him. Thereafter, the prosecution filed a petition before the trial court to add the name of the petitioner in the cognizance order and that petition was rejected and thereafter, a petition was filed under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which was rejected, though not on merit, and thereafter, the prosecution again made a prayer under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copies of the depositions of prosecution witnesses, PW 1 to PW 6, have been filed and from its perusal, it is evident that all the said prosecution witnesses did not level any specific allegation against the petitioner in the commission of the alleged occurrence and the allegations levelled by them against the petitioner is completely vague and general and the same is not sufficient to summon the petitioner by invoking the provisions of section 319 of the Cr.P.C and it is settled position of law that there must be strong materials to summon one as an accused during the trial in the light of the prosecution evidences and for exercising the said power, the prosecution evidence upon which reliance is placed by the prosecution must be much stronger than the evidences which are required to find out prima facie commission of an offence by an accused at the time of taking cognizance and in this matter at the time of passing the order impugned under section 319 of the Cr.P.C, no strong evidence appears from the evidence of PW 1 to PW 6 and even the I.O., who was examined as PW 6, did not say anything to show the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged occurrence. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 and the relevant paragraphs upon which reliance has been placed are being reproduced as under:-
“95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 3 SCC 321 : (2013) 11 Scale 23], held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be “arrested” or “summoned”, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons”.
“105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an ext
