Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Standard of Proof for Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The power to summon an accused under Section 319 is a discretionary and extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly, only when the court is satisfied that there is sufficient material indicating involvement in the offence. The evidence must be credible and establish a prima facie case of involvement, not merely suspicion or incomplete statements. ["Kiran, W/o. Vikramjeet VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"], ["Sankar Addhya @ Shankar Addya @ Daku VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"], ["Urmila Devi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]
Criteria for Exercise of Power - The court must be convinced that the evidence on record, including statements of witnesses and other material, clearly indicates the involvement of the person sought to be summoned. The involvement must be clear and based on material that appears from the evidence, not just allegations or uncorroborated statements. ["Kiran, W/o. Vikramjeet VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"], ["AJAY AND ANOTHER vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad"], ["SATHEESH KUMAR H P vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY - Karnataka"], ["AVADH NARESH SINGH @ CHUNMUN vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Supreme Court"]
Timing and Procedure - The application for summoning under Section 319 should be made after the examination of witnesses and only when the court is satisfied of the accused’s involvement. The court need not wait for full evidence but must ensure that the material disclosed justifies summoning. The proceedings against the summoned person commence from the stage of cognizance, and the court must adhere to the principles of fairness, including hearing the person before summoning. ["Sankar Addhya @ Shankar Addya @ Daku VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"], ["SHIV SHANKAR vs State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - Allahabad"], ["Shailesh Shrotriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]
Exercise of Discretion - The Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 319 is to be invoked in rare cases only when the evidence is sufficient to establish the accused's involvement. Involvement should be ascertained from credible evidence, and the power should not be used arbitrarily or in cases lacking clear proof. ["Kiran, W/o. Vikramjeet VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"], ["SACHIN AND 3 OTHERS vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad"], ["AVADH NARESH SINGH @ CHUNMUN vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Supreme Court"]
Legal Limits and Safeguards - The courts must exercise caution and ensure that the application under Section 319 is not frivolous or based on inadmissible or uncorroborated evidence. The accused has a right to be heard before being added as an accused. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the power is extraordinary and must be exercised with restraint and only when the evidence justifies such action. ["Kiran, W/o. Vikramjeet VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"], ["SHIV SHANKAR vs State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - Allahabad"], ["SATHEESH KUMAR H P vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY - Karnataka"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The case law consistently underscores that summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a high-threshold exercise, requiring clear, credible, and sufficient evidence of involvement. The power is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional cases where the involvement is well established from the evidence on record. Courts must ensure fairness by hearing the person before summoning and avoid frivolous applications. The judgment in Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SC 6421) emphasizes that the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 is much stricter, reflecting the need for substantial proof before summoning an individual as an accused.
In the realm of criminal trials in India, the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973—now mirrored in Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—remains a pivotal yet cautiously wielded tool. A frequent query among legal practitioners and those navigating criminal cases is: Shankar vs State of Uttar Pradesh 319 crpc. This refers to the Supreme Court's landmark clarification in Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 730), which sets stringent benchmarks for invoking this provision. This blog post breaks down the ruling, its implications, and related precedents to help you grasp when courts may—or may not—summon extra accused during trial.
Section 319 CrPC empowers a court, during a criminal trial, to summon any person not already an accused if evidence suggests their involvement in the offense. This extraordinary power aims to ensure complete justice by trying all implicated parties together. However, as emphasized in Shankar, it is discretionary and must be exercised sparinglyMohd. Shafi VS Mohd. Rafiq - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 471.
The provision applies to:- Persons not named in the FIR.- Those named in the FIR but omitted from the charge-sheet.
Key caveat: It cannot be used casually or post-trial conclusion Atul Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. , Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 596.
The Supreme Court in Shankar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 730) ruled that summoning under Section 319 requires strong, cogent evidence that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Mere suspicion or weak material falls short Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. vs S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1050.
The Court stressed subjective judicial satisfaction based on record evidence, not mechanical application Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. vs S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1050.
Drawing from the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Shankar judgment reinforces:
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, only when there is strong, cogent evidence Mohd. Shafi VS Mohd. Rafiq - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 471.
Similarly, Dharam Pal underscores that evidence must indicate involvement compelling enough for conviction if unrebutted Mohd. Shafi VS Mohd. Rafiq - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 471. In Shankar, the trial court's order was scrutinized for lacking this threshold, highlighting abuse risks if based on weak or uncorroborated material Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. vs S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1050.
In Shankar, the Court examined a trial court's decision to summon additional accused. It held the exercise proper only with strong evidence justifying subjective satisfaction. Summoning on suspicion alone violates these principles, constituting judicial overreach Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. vs S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1050.
The ruling clarifies: Courts need not delay for cross-examination but must ensure evidence quality—more than probable cause, less than proof beyond doubt Mohd. Shafi VS Mohd. Rafiq - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 471.
Other rulings echo Shankar's caution. In a 2023 case, the Supreme Court noted:
Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. ... In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. Satbir Singh VS Rajesh Kumar - 2025 4 Supreme 60
Here, for offenses under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 IPC r/w 34 and Arms Act, the Sessions Judge's summoning based on examination-in-chief was upheld as higher than prima facie, reversing High Court interference Satbir Singh VS Rajesh Kumar - 2025 4 Supreme 60.
Contrastingly, in a POCSO matter, summoning was quashed for relying on inconsistent witness statements without strong and cogent evidence Nisha Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2249. Courts must avoid implicating based on mere allegations.
On notice: Multiple cases affirm no prior notice required to proposed accused if prima facie evidence exists R. Anitha Radhakrishnan VS State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2032R.Anitha Radhakrishnan vs The State - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 41941. For instance:
The court held that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., prior notice to a proposed accused is not required before summoning, provided there is strong prima facie evidence against them. R. Anitha Radhakrishnan VS State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2032
However, Section 161 statements cannot solely basis summoning post-trial start; they corroborate later Sanjay Dalmia VS State Of Haryana - 2004 Supreme(P&H) 1345.
In another, High Court directed summoning where witness evidence showed involvement in abetment to suicide (Sections 498A, 306 IPC), stressing pre-conclusion exercise Renuka @ Shivubai W/o. Shrishail Byalyal VS Siddappa S/O. Chandappa Byalyal - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 529.
Generally, these guidelines prevent misuse while ensuring justice.
Shankar vs State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms Section 319 CrPC as a serious power, exercisable with:- Strong, unrebutted evidence leading to potential conviction.- Judicial discretion during trial.- No reliance on suspicion.
This ruling, building on Hardeep Singh, promotes fair trials. Note: This is general information; consult a legal expert for case-specific advice.
For deeper dives into CrPC provisions or related judgments, stay tuned.
#Section319CrPC, #SupremeCourtRuling, #CriminalLaw
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in AIR 2019 SC 3477 has held as under :- “9.The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an Accused person Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is higher than the standard of proof employed ... Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar Vs. State of UP & Ors reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 6421, Aarif & ors Vs. State of Rajastha....
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.), (2023) 7 SCC 344 (Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.). 12. ... State of Punjab and Another), (2019) 4 SCC 556 (Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others), (2019) 7 SCC 806 (Sri Prakash Mishra Vs. ... State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), (2023) 5 SCC 406 (Juhru and Others Vs. Karim a....
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2023) 7 SCC 344, upon considering Hardeep Singh (supra), had the occasion to observe as follows: “10. ... Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. ... In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.”]. ... Though under Section 319(....
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108 has explained the law purported by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) regarding the evidence required the satisfaction of the Court for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ... State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 has explained the meaning of word ‘evidence’ as used under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under: “117.3. ... In the abse....
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, decided on 23rd July, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 13 SCC 806 has held as under: "14. In the judgment in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan this Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. ... .47/2017 on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. ... State of Punjab, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that as regards the contention that the phrase “any person not being the accused” occurring in Section 319 Cr.P.C. ....
In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2024 SC 3085) and Hetram @ Babli v. State of Rajasthan (2024 KHC 8526). 7. ... It is made clear that the observations made in this order so far as the involvement of respondents 6 and 7 in the alleged incident are only for the purpose of consideration of the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. ... O R D E R This criminal revis....
According to him, the non-bailable warrant was obtained by the police authority of District Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh for arrest of the petitioner on account of business rivalry. ... 3. ... He, however, had no answer to the legal proposition that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., could not after the commencement of the trial be made the basis of a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. While there is no doubt that Smt. ... However, it would be open to the prosecution to move an application u....
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [(2024 4 Supreme 271] (iv) Naveen Vs. ... State of Haryana and others (supra) and Shankar and others Vs. ... State of Uttar Pradesh [2019 (6) CTC 106] (vii) Sarbjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 141] (viii) Prasanna Das and another Vs. ... The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the....
State of U.P. and another [(2014) 3 SCC 92] (ii) Vikas Rathi Vs.The State of U.P. & Anr. [2023 Livelaw (SC) 172] (iii) Shankar & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [(2024 4 Supreme 271] (iv) Naveen Vs. ... The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the judgment referred to in Hardeep Singh's case, and held that the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case has given a caution that the power under ....
(xxxiii). N. Manogar and Another Vs. Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 174 31. Before proceeding to do so, it must be noticed that following issues stand settled as per judgements mentioned herein above and, therefore, they are not required to be dealt with. 30. With the aid of above, the Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-22, Kanpur Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2019 (State Vs. Anurag and others)), under Sections 376 DA I.P.C. and Section 17 re....
Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 2 SCC 435 , more particularly, paragraph No.40 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference,: "40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C., though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. were amended vide the Amendment Act 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned.
(Dayal Singh& others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 263.) Considering worth of the evidence of evidence of a relative, their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173.
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vijay Dhanuka vs. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638; and Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 2 SCC 435.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
