IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for circumspection in applying Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the importance of considering the evidence and guidelines for summoning additional accused under this section.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2011 passed in S.C. No.33 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj, whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj.

3. On the application of the informant-opposite party no.2, the case was registered alleging therein that on 16.06.2009 at about 12:00 noon, the accused persons namely Ballu Ansari, Azad Ansari, Sajjad Ansari, Tohid Ansari, Pawan Panjabi, Sonu Paswan and Manoj Paswan have caught younger brother of the informant namely Md. Saiyad Ansari with intention to kill him. In the meantime, the accused Ballu Ansari had fired bullet on the head of Saiyad Ansari in the result of which he died at the spot near the palm tree. On hulla, another younger brother of the informant and Mohalla people reached at the place of occurrence. After seeing them, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. It was further alleged that the entire occurrence occurred in their presence. The reason behind this case is that dish wire of the deceased was crossed over the roof of the accused Ballu Ansari and accused Ballu Ansari had regularly used to cut this dish wire, due to which the above named accused persons had committed murder of the deceased Saiyad Ansari.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been called upon to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the application of the informant. He further submits that nothing cogent has come against the petitioner and in spite of that the petitioner was called upon. He also submits that there is no allegation of firing against the petitioner rather the same has been alleged against one Ballu Ansari. The name of the petitioner has been simply mentioned in the FIR with ulterior motive. He submits that in that view of the matter, at the initial stage the learned court has not taken cognizance against the petitioner, however on the application of the informant, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial. He also submits that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they have faced the trial and vide judgment dated 29.01.2011 itself, they have been acquitted by the learned court. He submits that in absence of any material against the petitioner, he has been called upon to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court on the application of the informant has called upon the petitioner to face the trial. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order.

6. The Court has gone through the judgment by which the other accused persons have been acquitted and finds that in the said judgment also, nothing has come against this petitioner. On the application filed by the informant, the learned court has called upon the petitioner to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the impugned order, it has not been discussed who are the witnesses who have taken the name of the petitioner, which suggests that without any cogent reason, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial.

7. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued and the said Section is required to be applied with circumspection. Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab; [(2023) 1 SCC 289] has considered Section 319 Cr.P.C. and parameters of the provision has been discussed. Paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“39.(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section f