The court ruled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and requires substantial evidence beyond a prima facie case to summon additional accused.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Bajaj, J.

1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 550 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354-Kha I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5)Ka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Jhunsi, District Allahabad, whereby in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the appellants have been summoned as additional accused.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the appeal are that on the basis of written complaint by Dharma Devi-opposite party no.2, the first information report bearing Case Crime No. 550 of 2020, (Annexure No.1), was registered, wherein it is alleged that complainant's father-in-law, namely, Bhawani Deen under the influence of liquor in a deceitful manner was made to execute a sale deed in favour of Sunil Kumar son of Bhalli Lal Yadav, and the ancestral property was transferred in favour of the purchaser without the consent of the others, which also included the ancestral house. For the last two years, Sunil Kumar had been harassing complainant and her family members, who every day is forcing them to vacate the property. About six months back, Sunil Kumar along with his accomplices had given beatings to the complainant and her husband, and in this regard, an information was given to the police, but no case was registered. For the last one week, Sunil Kumar along with his associates and family members has been intimidating the complainant. Today, on 14.09.2020 at around 7.00 a.m., Sunil Kumar along with Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Vijay Kumar and Kapil Yadav came to her house and dragged the complainant out on the road, and it turned her partially unclothed, and the assailants also committed obscenity, whereupon complainant’s husband and son came to rescue her, but the accused persons abused and threatened them all. When the neighbours arrived at the spot, the assailants fled away. On these broad allegations, the first information report was registered against four named and one unknown persons for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 425,323, 504, 506 354 (Kha) IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and upon conclusion of the same charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed on 11.11.2020 only against Sunil Kumar, whereas the appellants were declared innocent.

4. Thereafter, the trial court analyzed the final report and proceeded to frame charges against the sole accused Sunil Kumar. During trial the complainant/opposite party no.2 was examined as P.W.-1 on 10.05.2023, and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 25.07.2023 was moved by complainant for summoning appellants as additional accused, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28.07.2023. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the allegations made in the FIR itself would show that the complainant has set up a false case to question the action of her father-in-law, who had disposed of his immovable property in favour of co-accused Sunil Kumar. The appellants were unnecessarily dragged in the said case through the FIR, and during investigation no incriminating evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to show the involvement of the appellants, therefore, they were declared innocent in the final charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 11.11.2020.

6. Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the evidence on record is not enough for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., but the trial court has erroneously exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319