Summary
The Supreme Court restored a revision challenging summoning under Section 319 CrPC. Subsequent warrants and bond-forfeiture notices did not insulate the original summoning order from scrutiny; if that order failed, consequential proceedings would also fall. The High Court was to reconsider the revision on merits, including the asserted juvenility of one appellant. The Supreme Court did not itself decide whether the evidence justified adding the appellants as accused.
Issues
- Whether subsequent coercive and bond-forfeiture proceedings barred revision of the underlying Section 319 summoning order.
Provisions considered
- Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court reiterated the exceptional nature of the power and its stronger-than-charge-stage evidentiary threshold, while directing the High Court to examine whether the summoning order satisfied the applicable law. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 11, 16)
Held
- Section 319 requires strong and cogent evidence of complicity, exceeding the prima facie threshold for framing a charge but short of a finding that unrebutted evidence would necessarily produce conviction. It is not a casual power or a determination of guilt. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Warrants and proceedings consequent on the summoning order could not prevent review of that foundational order. If it was invalid, its consequential proceedings would automatically end. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The High Court had not examined the summoning order’s correctness and was required to do so afresh. It also had to consider the pleaded claim that the first appellant was a juvenile on the incident date. (¶¶ 8, 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s dismissal of revision set aside and the revision restored for fresh consideration, including the juvenility ground.