The court ruled that prior hearing before impleadment under Section 319 of the CrPC is not universally required.

1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the present appellants which was in turn filed challenging the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge invoking powers under S.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the CrPC) and impleading the present appellants as accused.

2. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the High Court, while dismissing the petition, has relied upon the judgment of the Devision Bench of this Court in the case of " Jogendra Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. " reported in 2015 (9) SCC 244 . Mr. S. Nagamuthu submits that the law laid down in " Jogendra Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. " does not lay down the correct position of law. He submitted that the said judgment holds that an accused who is impleaded by invoking powers under S.319 of CrPC does not have an opportunity to file a discharge application under S.227 of the CrPC, in as much as he has an opportunity of being heard before being impleaded as an accused. It is submitted that there are divergent views of various High Courts. Some High Courts have held that, in view of the principles of natural justice, an accused is entitled to be heard prior to exercising of powers under S.319 of CrPC, while other High Courts have held that such a hearing is not necessary.

3. It is the submission of Mr. S. Nagamuthu that, since " Jogendra Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. " is decided by two learned Judges of this Court, the following issues are required to be referred to a larger Bench: (1), as to whether an accused who is impleaded under S.319 of CrPC is entitled to file an application for discharge or not (2) as to whether a person before being impleaded as an accused is entitled to prior hearing or not.

4. We had requested Sh. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel to assist as an Amicus Curiae. Both Mr. S. Nagamuthu and Sh. Ranjit Kumar have done in - depth research and have relied upon various authorities.

5. However, in the facts of the present case, we do not find that it is necessary to refer the aforesaid questions of law to a larger Bench.

6. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge clearly reveals that not only has the learned Sessions Judge referred to objections raised by the present appellants but he has also considered in detail the submissions made by the appellants, as to why they should not be impleaded as the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of " Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. " reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92 .

7. It is thus clear that in the facts of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has given in - depth consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and as such, the case of the appellant was effectively considered by the Sessions Judge. We therefore, find that the requirement that has been laid down in the case of " Jogendra Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. " that an accused would be entitled to prior hearing before passing an order under S.319 of CrPC has been duly complied with. In that view of the matter, the issues raised herein would be of purely an academic nature.

8. Time and again it has been held by this Court that the Court should refrain from deciding questions which are mearly of an academic nature. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

9. We are grateful to Sh. Ranjit Kumar for giving his valuable time and his valuable assistance.