THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.701 OF 2025

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the impugned Order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.315 of 2024 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jagitial (for short, “the learned trial Court”), whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) was allowed, thereby adding the petitioners as accused Nos.4 and 5 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2024.

02. Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Court failed to satisfy itself with regard to the essential ingredients of any of the alleged offences. It is contended that the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and erroneously passed the impugned Order. It is further submitted that since there was no involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime, the Police had deleted their names from the array of accused during the course of investigation. After such deletion, the de-facto complainant did not file any protest petition objecting to the said deletion. The power conferred upon the Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Hence, while seeking to set aside the impugned Order, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and others, 2025 INSC 416 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it was held that:

“13. The law on the point of summoning additional accused in exercise of power conferred by Section 319 Cr.P.C is well settled. One may profitably refer to and rely on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, where law has been authoritatively declared. We consider it proper to quote the conclusions reached by this Court qua the questions arising for decision, hereunder:

“117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:

Questions (i) and (iii)

— What is the stage at which power under Section

319 CrPC can be exercised ?

AND — Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

Answer

117.1. In Dharam Pal case [(2014) 3 SCC 306], the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of the investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 CrPC and the Sessions Judge need not wait till “evidence” under Section 319 CrPC becomes available for summoning an additional accused.

117.2. Section 319 CrPC, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) inquiry (2) trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. Materials coming before the court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet.

117.3. In view of the above position the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.

Question (ii)—Whether the word “