Brief Facts
- The Respondent lodged an FIR under Section 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC alleging that his sister had hanged herself to death after being tortured and harassed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law. However, the Chargesheet was filed only against the Husband and Mother-in law.
- During the course of the trial the Complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C seeking to summon the other three accused named in the FIR as additional accused which was dismissed by the trial court. However, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Complainant and summoned the remaining accused. Being aggrieved by the same appellant filed the present appeal.
Issues
- What are the procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of power to summon additional accused under section 319 of Cr.P.C?
Held
- The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by quashing the summoning of the sister-in-law and her husband, however, summoning of Father-in-law was found to be justified as he was living in the same roof with his son and wife and privy to all alleged occurrences of torture, harassment, demand for dowry made to the deceased.
- It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that 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. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
- The Supreme Court also reiterated the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C as enunciated in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289, which also lays down the manner in which trial is to be conducted pursuant to summoning of additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.
Relevant Para No.
- 16, 17, 23