Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a matrimonial dispute where the complainant, S. Nallasamy, alleged that on 05.05.2011, his wife's relatives and others forcibly entered his house, threatened him, and demanded Rs. 30 lakhs. The FIR was registered on 29.05.2011 under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506 IPC, naming 11 accused. During investigation, the complainant and witnesses did not disclose any other names. After chargesheet was filed against the 11 accused, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon 20 additional accused, including the appellants. The Magistrate dismissed the application on 27.02.2015, finding that the names of the proposed accused were not disclosed in the FIR or during investigation, and that merely stating names without specifying the crime committed was insufficient. The High Court, in revision, set aside the Magistrate's order and directed summoning of the appellants, relying on the evidence of PW1 (complainant), PW2 (mother), PW3 and PW4 (neighbours), who stated that apart from the 11 named accused, other persons also committed the offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence appears against a person. The test is more than a prima facie case but short of satisfaction that the evidence would lead to conviction. In this case, the FIR mentioned 15 women and 35 men but only 11 were named. During investigation, no other names were disclosed. The complainant sought to cast a wide net without primary evidence of the appellants' role. The allegations were vague and did not provide any description to identify the appellants. Therefore, there was no strong or cogent evidence to summon them. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Requirement of Strong and Cogent Evidence - The power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence appears against a person from the evidence led before the court. The test is more than a prima facie case as at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Vague allegations without identification of the persons in the FIR or during investigation do not meet this standard. (Paras 10-14) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Matrimonial Dispute - In a matrimonial dispute, where the FIR mentioned 15 women and 35 men but only 11 were named, and the complainant and witnesses did not disclose the names of the appellants during investigation, summoning them under Section 319 CrPC based on belated statements in court is not justified. The court must ensure that the evidence is not used to cast a wide net against numerous persons without primary evidence of their role. (Paras 12-14) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319 - Summoning of Additional Accused - Identification - Where the FIR and statements under Section 161 CrPC do not provide names or descriptions to identify the additional accused, summoning them under Section 319 CrPC is unsustainable. The allegations must be specific and not vague to allow inclusion of any person at any time. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC and summoning the appellants as additional accused based on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 28.08.2018, and restored the Magistrate's order dated 27.02.2015 dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC. The appellants were not to be summoned as additional accused.
Law Points
- Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence
- more than prima facie case
- before summoning additional accused
- power to be exercised sparingly
- vague allegations in FIR without identification of persons insufficient
- matrimonial disputes require careful scrutiny before widening the net of accused.
