Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1108
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Naser Ali And Ors- S/O- Late Jharu Sheikh – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Public Prosecutor And Ors – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P. 408 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.319
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.302, S.325, S.34
Headnote
(B) Investigation - Charge-sheet - The fact that a suspect was not sent up for trial by the investigating agency does not denude the court of its power under the relevant provision to summon such person based on evidence emerging during the proceeding - Standards governing civil claims are entirely distinct and do not negate potential criminal liability. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the trial court summoning them as additional accused in a criminal case previously charge-sheeted without their inclusion. The petitioners argued that the investigating agency did not find sufficient material against them and that civil proceedings initiated by the legal representatives of the victims indicated the matter was an accident rather than a crime.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the trial court's order was based on testimonies provided during the proceeding which explicitly linked the additional accused to the occurrence. It was held that civil compensation proceedings and the initial exclusion from the charge-sheet do not override the court’s judicial discretion to summon persons when evidence indicates their potential involvement.
Issues: Whether the court below correctly exercised its jurisdiction to summon additional accused solely on the basis of testimonial evidence despite the investigating agency not finding sufficient material to charge-sheet the individuals initially.
Ratio Decidendi: A court is empowered to summon any person not previously charged if evidence recorded during inquiry or trial establishes a sufficient prima facie case, and such authority remains independent of the findings of the investigating agency.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Ms. R Choudhury, Mr. Z. Hussain,Md. Memon Ahmed
For the Respondent: PP, Assam, Mr. T Islam,Mr. K Alom,Md. A Hussain, Mr. A. Hussain, Ms. A. Begum, APP.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of criminal revision petition against section 319 cr.p.c. summoning order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties argument regarding the validity of summoning persons not charge-sheeted. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. scope of section 319 cr.p.c. and judiciary's power despite police non-inclusion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. independence of criminal jurisdiction from civil motor accident claim proceedings. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. final confirmation of trial court's discretionary summoning order. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S.E. Muktaza, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. A. Begum, learned APP for the State respondents.
2. By way of the present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri in PRC No. 1634/2019 arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 53/2018, whereby the learned Trial Court, in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, impleaded the petitioners as accused persons and directed issuance of summons against them.
3. The facts, in brief, are that an FIR dated 15.01.2018 was lodged alleging, inter alia, that on 11.01.2018 at about 7:00 p.m., while the informant’s younger brother and paternal uncles were proceeding towards Balajan on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-17-E-9011, they were intercepted near Dumardaha Bridge on National Highway No. 31 by the accused persons travelling in a Bolero Pick-up Van bearing Registration No. AS-17-B-9623. It was alleged that the vehicle intentionally struck the motorcycle, causing the riders to fall on the road, whereafter the accused persons got down from the vehicle and assaulted them with iron rods, resulting in the death of Akkel Ali and grievous injuries to the others. Subsequently, one of the injured persons also succumbed to his injuries. Upon registration of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 53/2018 under Sections 120-B /302/325/34 IPC, investigation was undertaken. Upon completion of investigation, the petitioners were not sent up for trial. However, during the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, evidence emerged through the testimony of PW-1 and CW-1 implicating the present petitioners in the occurrence. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 01.09.2025, the learned Trial Court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioners to face trial.
4. Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law. According to her, the Investigating Officer, after a full-fledged investigation, did not find sufficient material to charge-sheet the petitioners. In such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have exercised its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the absence of compelling evidence. She further submits that Siddique Ali, one of the witnesses, had filed a petition before the Trial Court asserting that the person arrayed as accused was not the individual against whom allegations were originally made. Though the said petition was rejected by order dated 06.05.2025, the same, according to the learned counsel, casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.
5. It is further contended that the legal representatives of one of the deceased persons had instituted proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and were awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the petitioners, the said circumstance demonstrates that the occurrence was essentially a motor vehicle accident and not a case involving any criminal conspiracy or murderous assault. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajjan Lal @ R
