***

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. –

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner-complainant assailing the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby an application moved under Section 319 of the Code Criminal Procedure seeking summoning of respondents No. 2 to 4 as additional accused was dismissed.

2. The prosecution case originates from an FIR registered on the complaint of the petitioner Shivraj alleging that the marriage of his sister Mamta was solemnized with accused Bhagat on 19.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was alleged that after the marriage, Mamta was subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of dowry demands raised by the accused persons. On 09.05.2022, the complainant received information that Mamta had committed suicide at her matrimonial home. Upon reaching the house of the accused, the complainant and his family members noticed that the body of Mamta was lying inside the house and certain injury marks were visible on her body. Suspecting foul play, the complainant alleged that the accused persons had caused the death of his sister, whereupon the FIR in question came to be registered.

During investigation, the police found sufficient material only against Bhagat Singh Bhola and Raj Bala and accordingly presented the challan against them. Charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Shivraj (complainant) as PW1, Shivipal as PW2, ASI Vijay Kumar as PW3, Lady Constable as PW4 and SI Maksood Khan as PW5.

During the course of trial, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved seeking summoning of Poonam, Komal wife of Raju and Sumit as additional accused on the ground that they had been specifically named in the complaint and their roles had also been mentioned during the deposition of PW1 and PW2 before the Court. The learned trial Court, after examining the material placed before it, dismissed the said application holding that no reliable incriminating evidence had emerged during trial against the proposed accused so as to justify exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.?.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that PW1 and PW2 during their examination before the Court have narrated the occurrence and have specifically named the respondents as additional accused, yet the trial Court dismissed the application without proper application of mind. It is, thus, contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the proposed persons ought to be summoned as additional accused to face trial.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have supported the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 and submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case with due care.

6. The scope and ambit of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stand authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it has been held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that required for framing of charge and the evidence must be such which, if left unrebutted, would reasonably lead to conviction.

7. Similar view has been reiterated in Michael Machado v. CBI, 2000 (3) SCC 262 and Suman v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 908, wherein it has been emphasized that mere suspicion or possibility of involvement is not sufficient for summoning a person as an additional accused.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vid State of U.P (2021) 12 SCC 608, has reiterated that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C should only be exercised when strong and cogent evidence is presented against a person and the test to be applied is one that is and the more than a prima facie case, as applied at the time of framing of charges.

9. Most recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and Another V. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2025) 2 SCC 621, has summarized the principles that need to be kept in mind for the summoning of additional accused as under:-

“21. The principles of law as regards Section 319 of the CrPC may be summarised as under:

a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.

b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

c. The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.

c. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.’

10. Examined in the light of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has duly considered the statements of PW1 and PW2 relied upon by the complainant. A careful reading of their depositions reveals that the allegations against the proposed accused are general and omnibus in nature. It is also not in dispute that during investigation the police, after examining the material available on record, did not find sufficient evidence to array the proposed persons as accused and therefore did not include them in the final report presented before the Court.

11. Significantly, the evidence sought to be relied upon in support of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. substantially corresponds to the material which had already been examined during investigation. No new or compelling circumstance has emerged during trial which could justify the summoning of the proposed accused as additional accused. The law is equally well settled that the mere naming of a person by a witness in his deposition, without the support of strong and cogent evidence, cannot by itself justify the exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

12. Another aspect which deserves to be noticed is that the proposed accused are relatives of the husband of the deceased and the allegations against them appear to be general in nature. It is not uncommon in cases relating to matrimonial disputes and allegations of dowry death that extended members of the matrimonial family are also implicated. Courts are therefore required to exercise caution and circumspection before summoning additional persons to face trial, particularly when the evidence does not disclose specific and convincing material against them.

13. It is also pertinent that during the pendency of the present revision petition, the trial in the case has already reached its culmination and the entire prosecution evidence stands concluded. At such an advanced stage of the proceedings, the summoning of additional accused can be justified only when the evidence on record unmistakably points towards their active and direct involvement in the commission of the offence. The material placed before this Court falls short of the stringent standard laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh’s case (supra).

The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope and is primarily meant to correct jurisdictional errors, patent illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice. When the trial Court has exercised its discretion on the basis of settled legal principles and upon due appreciation of the material on record, interference by the revisional Court would not be warranted merely because another view is possible.

14. The principle that clearly emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (supra) is that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked on the basis of mere suspicion or mechanical reproduction of allegations. The Court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has surfaced during trial indicating the probable complicity of the person sought to be summoned. In the absence of such compelling material, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised.

The present case, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has examined the matter in the correct legal perspective and has rightly concluded that the evidence available on record does not satisfy the stringent threshold required for summoning the proposed persons as additional accused. The impugned order dated 25.10.2024 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********