1
(Reportable)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2023
Vikas Rathi …Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr.                 …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The   Order   dated   16.05.2017   passed   by   the   Allahabad
High   Court   is   under   challenge   before   this   Court.     By   the
aforesaid   order,   Criminal   Revision   Petition   was   filed   by   the
respondent   No.2   challenging   the   order   dated   15.03.2017
whereby   the   application   filed   under   Section   319   Cr.P.C.   for
summoning the present appellant, was dismissed.
2. The High Court, vide impugned order had quashed the
Order   dated   15.03.2017   and   remanded   the   matter   back   to
the Trial Court for fresh examination.

2
3. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the
appellant established his business of manufacture of tools in
the   year   2003.     A   complaint   was   filed   by   respondent   no.2
regarding   murder   of   his   brother   Bachchu   Prasad.     It   was
mentioned   therein   that   he   used   to   work   in   the   appellant’s
firm.     On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   complaint,   FIR   No.
480/2013 was registered against unknown persons.   Nearly
two months after the complaint,  wife of the deceased gave a
complaint   to   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   Ghaziabad
making   false   allegations   against   the   appellant.       The
appellant   was   given   notices   by   the   Investigating   Officer.
Entire   information   sought   was   furnished   by   him.   During
investigation, the police found an eye witness namely Rajesh
Kumar to the alleged murder whose statement was recorded
under   Section   164   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.     The
aforesaid   fact   was   concealed   by   the   complainant   while
making complaint against the appellant . After completion of
investigation,   the   police   filed   chargesheet   against   two
accused persons namely Pannelal @ Panna Lal and Ombeer
Singh.     The   appellant   was   listed   as   a   prosecution   witness.
During trial, statements of various witnesses were recorded.

3
Even   the   appellant   was   examined   as   PW­6.     None   of   the
witnesses   stated   anything   against   the   appellant.     After   the
statement   of   the   appellant   (PW­6)   was   recorded,   the
complainant   filed   an   application   under   Section   319   of   the
Cr.P.C.   to   summon   the   appellant   as   accused   solely   on   the
basis   of   certain   vague   oral   allegation   by   PW­1,   PW­2   and
PW­3.   After   hearing   arguments,   the   Trial   Court   dismissed
the aforesaid application vide order dated 15.03.2017.   It is
the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in the present
appeal before this Court.
4. The   argument   raised   by   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant is that the approach of the High Court in sending
matter   back   for   examination   afresh   was   not   right   as   the
material   which   was   available   in   the   form   of   statements   of
various witnesses could very well be appreciated to find out
as to whether any case was made out against the appellant
for   summoning   under   Section   319   of   the   Cr.P.C.     It   is   not
mere suspicion on the basis of which an additional accused
could   be   summoned.     Only   where   strong   and   cogent
evidence   is   available   against   a   person   from   the   evidence
produced     before   the   Court,   which   could   lead   to   his

4
conviction,   that   such   a   power   could   be   exercised.   It   could
not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.
5. In   the   absence   thereof,   the   impugned   order   passed   by
the High Court deserves to be set aside and the order passed
by   the   Trial   Court,   dismissing   the   application   should   be
upheld. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on
judgments   of   this   Court   in   Hardeep   Singh   and   Ors.   Vs.
State of   Punjab & Ors ., (2014) 3 SCC 92;   Mohd. Shafi vs.
Mohd.   Rafiq    ,   (2007)   14   SCC   544;   Sagar   vs.   State   of   U.P.
and   Anr .,   (2022)   6   SCC   389 ;     Kailash   vs.   State   of
Rajasthan and Anr.,  (2008) 14 SCC 51 . 
6. He   further   submitted   that   the   stage   at   which   the
application   was   filed   by   the   complainant   to   summon   the
appellant   as   an   additional   accused,   the   trial   was   going   to
conclude   as   the   entire   evidence   had   been   led.     Vide
judgment   of   the   Trial   Court   dated   06.10.2017,   even   the
accused   against   whom   the   chargesheet   was   filed,   were   also
acquitted.     It   was   on   the   basis   of   the   sketchy   evidence
produced   by   the   prosecution   before   the   trial   court   that   the
appellant was sought to be summoned.

5
7. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the   State   and
the   complainant   submitted   that   a   clear   case   was   made   out
against   the   appellant   for   summoning   him   as   an   additional
accused.     The   trial   court   had   failed   to   exercise   the
jurisdiction   vested   in   it.     No   doubt,   the   High   Court   could
have   corrected   it   but   the   matter   was   remanded   back.     The
material   already   on   record   could   have   been   taken   into
account.     Had   it   been   so,   the   appellant   would   have   also
faced   trial   along   with   other   accused   or   even   could   be   tried
separately.     However,   the   fact   that   the   accused   persons
against whom the chargesheet was filed were acquitted vide
judgment dated 06.10.2017, has not been disputed.
8. Heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   and
perused the paper book. 
9. The   principles   of   law   with   reference   to   exercise   of
jurisdiction under 319 Cr.P.C. are well settled.  
10. The Constitution Bench in   Hardeep Singh and Ors.’s
case (supra), opined as under : 
“105. Power u/s 319 CrPC is a discretionary
and an extraordinary power.   It is to be exercised
sparingly   and   only   in   those   cases   where   the

6
circumstances of the case so warrant.   It is not to
be   exercised   because   the   magistrate   or   the
sessions   judge   is   of   the   opinion   that   some   other
person   may   also   be   guilty   of   committing   that
offence.     Only   where   strong   and   cogent   evidence
occurs   against   a   person   from   the   evidence   laid
before   the   court   that   such   power   should   be
exercised   and   not   in   a   casual   and   cavalier
manner.
106. Thus we hold that though only a prima
facie   case   is   to   be   established   from   the   evidence
laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the
anvil of cross­examination,  it requires much strong
evidence   that   near   probability   of   his   complicity.
The   test   that   has   to   be   applied   is   one   which   is
more   than   prima   facie   case   as   exercised   at   the
time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction
to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would   lead   to   conviction.     In   the   absence   of   such
satisfaction,   the   court   should   refrain   from
exercising power u/S 319 CrPC”.
      (emphasis supplied)
11. In   Sagar’s  case (supra) ,  it is   stated as under:
“9.   The   Constitution   Bench   has   given   a
caution that power under Section 319 of the Code

7
is a discretionary and extraordinary power which
should   be   exercised   sparingly   and   only   in   those
cases   where   the   circumstances   of   the   case   so
warrant   and   the   crucial   test   as   notice   above   has
to be applied is one which is more that prima facie
case as exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but   short   of   satisfaction   to   an   extent   that   the
evidence,   if   goes   unrebutted,   would   lead   to
conviction….”
12. If   the   evidence   already   on   record   produced   by   the
prosecution   is   considered   on   the   touchstone   of   law   laid
down   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Hardeep
Singh & Ors.  case (supra),  it does not go beyond suspicion.
There   is   no   eye­witness   to   the       occurrence.     All   what   has
been   stated   by   PW­2   (brother   of   the   deceased)   is   that   the
deceased   who   was   working   with   the   appellant   as   Manager
though   claimed   to   be   a   partner   by   the   complainant,   that
there   was   some   dispute   regarding   money   between   the
appellant   and   the   deceased.     Rajesh   Sharma   whose
statement   was   got   recorded   by   police   under   Section   164   of
the Cr.P.C. also retracted therefrom while appearing in court
as PW­5.  He stated that it was recorded by the police under

8
threat   of   involvement   in   some   false   case.     He   also   did   not
raise   any   finger   towards   the   appellant.     Rather   he   was   the
first   person   to   visit   the   house   of   the   deceased   after   the
murder  and informed the appellant to reach there.   He was
working   as   part   time   cook   with   the   family   of   the   deceased.
Without   any   material   brought   on   record,   the   widow   of   the
deceased   merely   stated   that   she   is   sure   that   the   appellant
had   committed   murder   of   her   husband   as   there   was   no
other   enemy.     One   of   the   brothers   of   the   deceased   who
appeared as PW­1, who was not present at the spot, did not
utter a single word against the appellant.  
13. The aforesaid material was not sufficient if examined in
the  light  of  the law  laid down  by  this  Court for  summoning
of an additional accused in exercise of power under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C. to establish complicity of the appellant in
the crime. 
14. After conclusion of the entire evidence and examination
of the material produced on record even against the charged
accused,   the   trial   court   had   acquitted   them   vide   judgment
dated   15.03.2017.   It   shows   that   material   produced   on

9
record  was  not   even  sufficient  for   conviction  of  the  accused
against whom chargesheet was filed.  
15. One   of   the   arguments   raised   by   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   parties   was   that   in   the   case   in   hand,   the
High   Court   instead   of   appreciating   the   material   placed   on
record by the parties in the form of evidence to find out as to
whether   a   case   was   made   out   for   summoning   of   the
appellant   as   an   additional   accused,   remitted   the   matter
back to the trial court for consideration afresh.   Remand in
such   a   matter   will   only   result   in   prolonging   the   litigation.
The  High   Court   only   recorded   that   reasons  assigned  by   the
trial court for rejecting the application were not sufficient. To
avoid  delay,  it  would  have   been   proper   exercise  of   power   in
case the High Court would have considered the material and
opine as to whether a case was made out for summoning of
additional   accused.     Whatever   reasons   have   been   recorded
by the trial court in the order so passed, may not have been
happily   worded   to   the   satisfaction   of   the   High   Court,   but
that error could have been corrected in exercise of revisional
power.  

10
16. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is
allowed.     The   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
set   aside   and   the   application   filed   by   the   complainant   for
summoning   the   appellant   as   an   additional   accused   is
dismissed. 
…..……….………………J.
                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]
..…………………….……J.
     [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi; 
01.03.2023.