IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not require a prior opportunity for the summoned person to be heard, provided there is sufficient evidence against them during the trial.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the summons issued on 23.2.2023 in C.C.No. 15 of 2015 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District, pending trial to secure the ends of justice.

1. Challenging the summon, dated 23.02.2023 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi/Trial Court in C.C.No. 15 of 2015, this criminal revision case filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a case in Crime No. 355 of 2012, dated 30.03.2012 registered against Sivakumar as A1 and Vijay as A2 for offence under Sections 409, 419, 420 & 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC. On conclusion of investigation, the 1st respondent Police filed charge sheet against eight persons listing nineteen witnesses and documents which was taken on file as C.C.No. 15 of 2015. The case against A2 was quashed on a strange procedure of conclusiveness between the 2nd respondent and A2. The trial Court not followed any procedure under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that A2 examined as witness and based on his previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the trial Court invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C., arrayed petitioner as accused and issued summons which is against the Rule laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naveen v. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 393. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 12 SCC 608 and Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2023) 3 SCC 423 for the point that the test laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 while invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against the person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be invoked. Further for the point there should be adequate evidence on records to set the criminal proceedings into motion and it is to be seen from the evidence recorded during the course of prosecution, if remains unrebutted it will not be sufficient to lead conviction so far the petitioner is concerned, hence, the trial Court ought not to have invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C and issued summons to the petitioner. Hence, he prays for setting aside the summon issued on 23.02.2023.

3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that earlierthree persons viz., Ganesan, Selvaraj and M.K.Manivannan/petitioner arrayed as accused invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., by order, dated 22.12.2016. Against which, revision petition filed before this Court and this Court by order, dated 30.01.2017 following the decision of this Court (P.Raju and another v. State reported in (2014) 2 Law Weekly (Crl) 473) held that Section 319 Cr.P.C., can be invoked by the trial Court only during course of trial on the basis of evidence let-in by the prosecution not on the basis of the materials placed along with the final report. Further it observed that it will be open to the Court below to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C at an appropriate stage if considered appropriate in arraying the petitioners therein as accused. In this case, A2 filed quash application and this Court by order, dated 30.03.2021 recorded the sequence of events and role played by each of the accused including the bank manager and how in a deceitful manner A2's signature obtained in documents to project as though he is a Proprietor of the Company and use this company name and account siphoned out amounts by A1, his associates in connivance with the bank officials. Right from the inception fraud played by the accused. The accused had no intention to supply the machineries as projected on the other hand on deception received huge sums of money and misappropriate the same, not only from the defacto complainant even from others on