In CRIMINAL APPEAL No.549 of 2023-SC- Power of summoning u/s 319 CrPC is not to be exercised routinely and existence of more than prima facie case is sine qua non to summon additional accused, rules Top Court 
Justices Surya Kant & J.K. Maheshwari [21-02-2023]

Read Order: JUHRU & ORS V. KARIM & ANR

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, February 24, 2023: With a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material carries the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial.

While dealing with the Criminal Appeal originating from a judgment whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and ordered the summoning of the Appellants under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as additional accused,  the Division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari observed that in the absence of any authentic evidence to bring them in close proximity to the reported crime, it would be unjustified to call upon Appellants  to face trial as additional accused in this case.

The factual matrix of the case was such that an  FIR dated July 9, 2017 was registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the statement of Karim - the first respondent to the effect that the marriage of his deceased sister (Rukseena) was solemnised with one Aamir. An Alto car, Rs.3 lakhs in cash, 3 kg of silver, 30 grams of gold, furniture and other household items were allegedly given to Aamir and his family members as dowry at the time of marriage. 

The family of Aamir consisted of Akhlima (mother), Juhru (father) – the first appellant  Sonam (sister) – second appellant and Rijwan (brother-in-law) – third appellant. The complainant further alleged that the family of Aamir was dissatisfied with the dowry and subjected the deceased to continuous torture and harassment. 

The first respondent and his family tried to settle the matter with Aamir and his family but all their efforts proved futile. Thereafter, the first respondent was telephonically informed that the deceased had hung herself to death.

 The investigating agency did not find any incriminating material against the Appellants in the course of investigation and Challan was filed only against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased, who were now facing trial.

 During the trial, the first respondent reiterated the allegations levelled against all the accused persons, including the Appellants. Soon thereafter, he filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court to summon the Appellants as additional accused.

The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the extraordinary power vested under section 319 Cr.P.C ought to be exercised only if the evidence adduced on record strongly indicates the possible involvement of the person(s) aimed to be prosecuted. 

The aggrieved first respondent , approached the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and vide impugned order his petition was allowed and the appellants were summoned to face trial.

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that  there is   no gainsaid that the alleged offence is grave and heinous in nature. The long arms of law must find out whether any person is guilty of abetting or taking away the precious life of a young girl who soon after her marriage met with such a tragic end. However, the only issue that fell for  consideration was whether there is sufficient evidence against the Appellants to summon them as additional accused, the Court stated. 

In view of the same, the Court took into consideration Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Further reference was placed on the case of  Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and to the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab.

In relation to the above stated precedents, the Court noted, “...power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused.” 

Adverting to the case in hand, the allegations against the Appellants are that they too played an active role in the commission of the alleged offence, the Court stated. 

The record revealed that after the application under section 319 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court, the first respondent was called for further examination-in-chief . His deposition distinctively unraveled that at the time of marriage, the first appellant – Juhru (father-in-law) had asked the first respondent to spend a sum of Rs. 20 lacs on the marriage of Aamir and the deceased, to which he had agreed. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that the first Appellant and his wife Akhlima (mother-in-law) were living under the same roof as his son Aamir (husband) and he would have been privy to all the alleged occurrences of torture, harassment or demand for more dowry. Viewed from this angle, it appears that the first appellant might have to sink or swim with his son and wife. The High Court order, to the extent of summoning the first Appellant   therefore, satisfies the ingredients of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and may not warrant any interference by this Court, the Court observed. 

Further with respect to the second  and third appellant, i.e the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, it appeared to the Court  that despite both of them being named in the FIR and in the examination-in-chief of first respondent  there was no credible evidence to connect them with the unnatural death of Rukseena.

 There was no cogent material that the second Appellant even after her marriage with  the third Appellant  continued to reside in her parents’ house or that they used to inter-meddle in the day to day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. 

In the absence of any authentic evidence to bring them in close proximity to the reported crime, it would be unjustified to call upon Appellants second and third  to face trial as additional accused in this case.

The Court was thus  of the considered view that summoning of  the first Appellant  shall  sustain, however that of second and third Appellants would be farfetched and they couldnot be subjected to trial on the basis of mere strong suspicion. 

The High Court’s order under challenge was accordingly set aside against the second and third appellants  Hence, the appeal was partly allowed.