Supreme Court of India judgment in Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order, which upheld a trial court’s decision to summon additional persons to face trial for murder and related offenses. The petitioners, initially named in the First Information Report (FIR) but later cleared in a police closure report, were added to the trial based on the testimony of a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court reviews the case, considering the power of courts under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add persons as accused during trial, even if not included in the charge-sheet, especially when evidence presented in court suggests their involvement, while also addressing the significance, or lack thereof, of the police’s closure report in such circumstances. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, affirming the lower courts’ decisions but allowing the petitioners to present all legal arguments, including the closure report, at trial.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 – Penal Code 1860, Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Only argument canvassed is that the Trial Court before summoning the petitioners as accused in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC should have taken into consideration the closure report filed by the I.O. exonerating the petitioners from the alleged offence – Held that a person is named in the FIR by the complainant but the police, after investigation finds no role of that particular person and files charge-sheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless and at the stage of summoning, if the Trial Court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so – Closure report filed by the police in the case on hand is yet to be looked into by the court concerned – The same has not been accepted till this date – Closure report now pales into insignificance in view of the order passed by the trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. summoning the petitioners herein to force the trial -It would have been in fitness of things if the Court concerned would have looked into the closure report at the earliest & passed an appropriate order one way or the other after hearing the de facto-complainant – The Court should not keep the closure report pending for consideration for a long time – Such report should be looked into promptly – Held that the High Court committed no error not to speak of any error of law in passing the impugned order rejecting the revision application and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court summoning the petitioners in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC – It shall be open for the petitioners to raise all contentions available to them in law before the Trial Court including placing reliance on the closure report whatever its worth.
(Para 14, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 23)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319 – Criminal Procedure – Summoning as an additional accused – Principles of law as regards Section 319 of the CrPC may be summarised as under:
- 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
- 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 chargesheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.
- 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.
- 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.
(Para 21)
Omi @ Omkar Rathore And Another V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 27: (DoJ 03-01-2025)
