Summary
The Supreme Court restored rejection of an application to summon twenty additional accused in a matrimonial-dispute prosecution. Their names or identifying descriptions had not appeared in the FIR or investigation statements, and the later naming lacked strong, cogent evidence of their roles in the alleged offences. Section 319 CrPC required more than the prima facie charge-framing threshold; casual expansion of the accused array on this record was unjustified.
Issues
- Whether the later witness statements supplied sufficiently strong evidence to summon the proposed additional accused.
Held
- Section 319 is an extraordinary discretionary power requiring strong and cogent evidence, beyond the prima facie standard used at charge framing but below the ultimate conviction threshold. (¶¶ 10–11, 14)
- In this case the initial materials identified eleven persons and contained no names or descriptions identifying the proposed additional accused. The vague larger-group allegation and subsequent naming did not establish their specific involvement with the necessary strength. (¶ 12–15)
- The High Court had treated disclosure of names in later testimony as enough. On this record that did not satisfy the governing standard, and the trial court’s refusal to summon was restored. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside, trial court order restored and Section 319 application dismissed.