IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., requiring stronger evidence than a prima facie case against the accused and the need for specific allegations of involvement in the crime against the proposed accused.

JUDGMENT :

Surendra Singh-I, J.

1. By means of instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 11.5.2022 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Basti in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Suresh and others)) under Section 306 IPC P.S. Paikoliya, District Basti. By the impugned order, the trial court has rejected the revisionist’s application 52 (Kha) filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party no.2 to 4 as an accused for trial.

2. It is has been averred by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has passed the impugned order against the weight of evidence on record and the without application of judicial mind, the order is illegal, improper and bad in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed by this Court.

3. It has been submitted that the revisionist’s sister Chandrakanti was subjected to dowry death for which, revisionist’s father Mani Ram Verma lodged the First Information Report against Ramsuresh husband of her daughter, her mother-in-law Mewati Devi and opposite party nos. 2 Gopal (devar), opposite party no.3 Umesh (devar) and opposite party no.4 Chotelal (father) under Sections- 498-A, 304-B and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Investigating Officer illegally expunged the names of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and filed a charge-sheet only against husband of the deceased Ramsuresh and her mother-in-law Mewati Devi under Section 306 IPC. During trial P.W.- 1 Mani Ram Verma and P.W.-2 Harish Chandra have deposed that apart from husband and mother-in-law the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were also involved in the commission of murder of the revisionist’s sister, therefore, revisionist moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for facing trial along with husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, thereafter, revisionist father Maniram Verma filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide its impugned order dated 11.5.2022 by the trial court without an application of judicial mind.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 to 4 had opposed the criminal revision and submitted that the informant had named them in the FIR merely on the ground that they were relatives of deceased husband. No specific role were assigned against them in the FIR, during investigation, no evidence was found against them, the Investigating Officer has rightly exonerated their names and did not filed charge-sheet against them.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

6. Before considering the legality of the impugned order dated 11.5.2022 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the statutory provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and law relating to it as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be considered which is quoted as under:-

319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

– (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

3. Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-Section (1) then—

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh,

and witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such pe