Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
RAMESHKUMAR JADAVBHAI SAVANI I.P.S. V/sTHE STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 501 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BM Mangukiya
For the Respondents: Rohan Raval
The power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be exercised routinely; it requires evidence that is more than merely prima facie to prevent misuse and ensure judicial safeguard.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A former police officer, who was initially released during the investigation via a report under Section 169 of the Code, was subsequently summoned as an accused by the trial court during the proceedings of a related case based on the testimony of a complainant. The court found that the evidence provided was largely hearsay and insufficient to justify the summoning of the applicant. The primary issue was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 319 of the Code to join the applicant as an accused. The court reasoned that the power to summon additional accused is not to be exercised routinely and that the existence of evidence which is "more than a prima facie case" is a sine qua non for such an order, emphasizing that the trial court must evaluate if the material carries similar weight to that testified against existing accused. Accordingly, present revision application is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts leading to the application for summoning an additional accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evaluation of witness testimony and the non-applicability of the atrocities act. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirement of evidence beyond prima facie for summoning under section 319 crpc. (Para 6) |
| 4. quashing of the summoning order due to improper exercise of judicial discretion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – accused has sought for following relief :
“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad dtd. July 15, 2006 below Application Ex.38 directing the present petitioner to be joined as an accused in Sessions Case No.144 of 2001.”
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :-
2.1. That the applicant was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Nadiad during 1992-94. On 28.05.1993, reitred Head Constrable RM Vaghela, father of Constable Bipin Vaghela attached to Limbasi Police Station and describing himself as a social worker, lodged FIR against the applicant, four others and a mob of about 100 persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 395, 120B, 34 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(11) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”). The complainant alleged that he was informed by one Keshavkumar about assault on his son Bipin, who was assisting PSI Vaghela in investigation of CR No.I-21/1993 of Limbasi Police Station for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. While recording statements of Police Constable Badesing and Head Constable Ramjibhai near Ramji Bhuvan at about 04.30 p.m., the applicant along with Popatbhai Kanubhai, Rajubhai Shah and others with a mob of 100 persons arrived, abused them, demanded tying Bipin and PSI Vaghela with rope and taking them to police station; the applicant used caste name, instigated the mob, who assaulted Bipin and robbed his wrist watch, chain and Rs.700/- besides threatening dismissal from the service if complaint was lodged.
2.2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against 10 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 332, 333 and 506(2) of the IPC and the Investigating Officer submitted a report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Matar, wherein, he has reported that the victim was not a member of Scheduled Caste and he is Christian by birther and therefore, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The Investigating Officer has submitted another report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Code”), stating that no offence is made out against the applicant and therefore, no chalan was filed under Section 173 of the Code.
2.3. The remaining accused were charge-sheeted and the learned Magistrate considering the charges triable by Sessions Court committed the case to the Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “Sessions Court”) as envisaged under Section 209 of the Code. The matter is registered and numbered as Sessions Case No.144 of 2001.
2.4. The learned Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad framed the charge against those accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 332, 395, 120B read with Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined two witnesses PW No.1 – Ratnaji Muljibhai Vaghela i.e. complainant who is father of the injured at Exhibit 34 and PW-2 Bipinbhai Vaghela i.e. victim of the incident at Exhibit 36.
2.5. Before cross-examination of the PW-2, the learned APP attached with the learned trial Court submitted an application at Exhibit 38 und
