For summoning under Section 319 Cr.PC, evidence must establish strong and cogent grounds against the accused, exceeding mere probability, which was not met in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A, 406, 420, 308, and 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 319 - Criminal Revision Petition against order summoning petitioners under Section 319 - Court ruled that for summoning, there must be strong and cogent evidence, more than prima facie, which was lacking against the petitioners in this case. (Paras 2, 12, 15)

(B) Criminal Law - Standard of Evidence - For summoning under Section 319 Cr.PC, evidence required must establish more than just a probability of complicity. (Para 12)

(C) Allegations - The allegations against the petitioners were deemed as general and omnibus, without specifics, rendering the summoning order unsustainable. (Paras 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
Complaint was filed by Rita Singh against her husband and in-laws under multiple IPC sections; however, only her husband was initially charged. Post-examination of witnesses, a petition was filed to summon in-laws which was allowed by the magistrate, prompting a criminal revision.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that no prima facie case against the petitioners had been established, ruling the summoning order to be without legal footing.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the evidence warranted the summoning of petitioners and the degree of evidence legally required under Section 319.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified that under Section 319, the magistrate must ensure that the evidence meets a higher standard than mere probable involvement, which was not satisfied in this instance.

Result: The impugned order was set aside, allowing the revision petition.

Table of Content
1. background of criminal complaint and proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding evidence and implication (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's examination of evidence and legal standards (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. final ruling and order on the petition (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

Introduction

The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.10.2019, passed by learned A.C.J.M.-I, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 540 of 2014, corresponding to Trial No. 933 of 2019, whereby learned A.C.J.M-I has summoned the petitioners herein under Section 319 Cr.PC to face the trial along with the accused persons, who are already facing the trial.

The factual background

2. The factual background of this case is that one Criminal Complaint bearing No. 540 of 2014 was filed by one Rita Singh, who is opposite party No.2 herein, against five accused persons, including the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 308 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of D.P. Act. The accused, as per the complaint, were as follows:

(i) Bajrangbali Singh, who is father-in-law of the complainant and who is also one of the petitioners herein,

(ii) Navneet Kumar, husband of the complainant/Rita Singh,

(iii) Shanti Devi, mother-in-law of the complainant and who is also one of the petitioners herein,

(iv) Rajesh Kumar, brother-in-law,

(v) Anita Devi, sister-in-law.

3. However, after inquiry under Section 200 Cr.PC, learned ACJM-I took cognizance only of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and only against one accused Navneet Kumar, who happens to be husband of the complainant.

4. Against this cognizance order, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 409 of 2014. However, the same was dismissed and the cognizance order was upheld.

5. It further transpires that after examination of four witnesses during trial, one application under Section 319 Cr.PC was filed by the complainant/Rita Singh under Section 319 Cr.PC for summoning the petitioners herein, who are father-in- law and mother-in-law of the complainant, stating that as per the evidence which has come during trial, there is sufficient material to summon them to face the trial with the co-accused. However, the same was contested by the petitioners by filing reply to the application of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.PC.

6. However, the application of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.PC was allowed by the learned ACJM-I vide order dated 17.10.2019, summoning the petitioners to face the trial with the co-accused. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition.

7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is settled principle of law that for summoning any accused under Section 313 Cr.PC, the Court has to see whether there is strong and cogent evidence against such person laid before the Court and not merely probability of his complicity. The evidence which must be more than prima facie case, though it may be sort of proof for conviction. He further submits that after perusal of the evidence of four prosecution witnesses during the trial, it clearly transpires that there is not even a prima facie case against the petitioners. They are parents-in-law of the complainant and as per the evidence on record, the complainant’s marriage with her husband has been running into rough weather on account of disturbed conjugal life. The complainant has suspicion that her husband/Navneet Kumar, who is co-accused, has illicit relationship with some other lady and he is not interested to establish conjugal relationship with her. It has also come on record that husband/Navneet Kumar, who is co-accused, on the other hand,