The extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused must be exercised sparingly, requiring strong, cogent, and fresh evidence that creates a reasonable prospect of conviction, rather than merely repeating material previously considered sufficient for quashing.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.589 of 2025 in C.C.No.2049 of 2015 by the learned III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution before the trial Court in C.C. No.2049 of 2015 seeking to summon accused Nos.3 to 7 to face trial along with accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences under Sections 415, 418, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The case originated from a complaint alleging that M/s Gemini Film Circuit and its partners had fraudulently obtained a loan of Rs.7.50 crores from the complainant company by suppressing the prior sale of satellite rights of the film “Maja Gaja Raja.” Initially, proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 7 were quashed by this Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, granted liberty to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. if evidence emerged during trial. During trial, PW1, the Managing Director of the complainant company, deposed regarding the active involvement of accused Nos.3 to 7 and marked several documents (Ex.P1 to P37) indicating that they, as partners of the firm, had authorized Accused No.2 to act on their behalf in securing the loan and dealing with the film rights. The prosecution contended that all accused acted in collusion and cheated the complainant. The petitioners opposed the petition on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence, that the earlier quashing order protected them, and that PW1’s evidence was not reliable. Upon consideration, the Court found prima facie material indicating involvement of accused Nos.3 to 7 and allowed the petition, directing issuance of summons against them. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of law, as such power is to be exercised sparingly and only on the basis of strong and cogent evidence and that the petitioners were already acquitted in the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act by judgment dated 22.12.2023, wherein it was categorically held that they were not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the firm, and therefore, the present attempt to array them as accused is an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that no new material has been brought on record to justify invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the dispute is purely civil in nature, already adjudicated earlier, including quashing of FIR by this Court. He contended that the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not filed by the de facto complainant as permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but by the prosecution, and that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing notice to the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as follows:

a) MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtangi¹1983 (1) SCC 1, wherein in paragraph No.19, it is held as unde