The power under section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised based on strong evidence indicating the complicity of the person sought to be summoned, and the Court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion of their involvement.

Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.

1. Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. This criminal revision has been preferred by revisionists challenging the order dated 31.3.2014 by which application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant was partially allowed and revisionists were summoned for facing trial under section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionists that Pravesh Kumar Singh was adopted by late Bachchu Singh and was living with his adoptive father separately from his natural father, mother and brothers. In this way, there was no occasion for the relatives of natural father demanding dowry.

3. As per factual matrix of the case a first information report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 (Umesh Singh) in Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Bahraich on 6.9.2005 at about 8.15 p.m. against Pravesh Singh, Raja Singh son of Shiv Mangal Singh, Rajesh Singh son of Shiv Mangal Singh, wife of Raja Singh, wife of Shiv Mangal Singh and Rajendra Singh, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Pravesh Singh only. After taking cognizance, the case was committed and the Sessions Court after framing of the charge recorded evidence. During evidence of P.W. 1 Umesh Singh son of Narendra Pal Singh and P.W. 2 Narendra Pal Singh son of Harihar Singh and an application was moved for summoning, Raja Singh, Rajesh Singh, Munni Devi, Rajendra Singh, learned Court below has after gone though the evidence on record summoned the revisionists except Kaladevi wife of Shiv Mangal, Rajendra to face trial. Feeling aggrieved this criminal revision has been filed.

4. Learned AGA argued in favour of the impugned order.

5. Section 3 19 Cr.P.C. as it exists today, is quoted hereunder:

319 Cr.P.C.--Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.--

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then--

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

6. Section 3 19 Cr.P.C. springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. It is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the Court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the Court exercise its power as contemplated in section 319 Cr.P.C?

8. Section 3 19 Cr.P.C. allows the Court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. Thus, the person against whom summons are issued in exercise of such powers, has to necessarily not be an accused already facing trial. He can either be a person named in Column 2 of the charge sheet filed under