Summary
A person omitted from the FIR and police report challenged his summoning in a rape case, contending that only Section 319 CrPC could be used against him. The Court held that cognizance concerns the offence and permits process against other persons whose prima facie involvement emerges from the available material, even if they are not listed in column 2. The victim’s Section 164 statement could be considered. The summoning order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report may summon someone absent from both the FIR and every part of the report.
- Whether the Magistrate must wait for the stage at which Section 319 becomes available.
Provisions considered
- Section 190(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Cognizance of the offence permitted summoning an additional person on material revealing prima facie involvement; omission from the FIR, charge sheet and column 2 was not a jurisdictional bar. (¶¶ 7, 19-21)
Held
- The power to proceed against persons other than those sent up by police was not confined to names placed in column 2 of the charge sheet. The earlier authorities addressed that category on their facts without making its inclusion a prerequisite. (¶ 19-20)
- The Magistrate need not wait until Section 319 becomes available where, at the cognizance stage before commitment, existing materials disclose prima facie involvement of an additional person. (¶¶ 9, 20)
- The materials considered need not be confined to the FIR or police report. The victim’s statement under Section 164 could support the decision to summon the appellant, whose name appeared there. (¶ 21)
- The Court found no error in the summoning order affirmed by the High Court. Its decision sustained the issuance of process rather than determining the appellant’s guilt at trial. (¶ 21-23)
Result
Appeal dismissed and the High Court judgment affirming the summoning order upheld. The interim order in the appeal stood dissolved.