S.319 CrPC | Can Summon Additional Accused Only On 'Evidence' Recorded In Trial; Case Diary Material Is Irrelevant: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to summon the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of a deceased woman as additional accused in a dowry death case.

The single judge reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary power which must be exercised sparingly with circumspection.

The HC thus upheld an order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kaushambi, observing that for summoning an additional accused, a mere prima-facie case is not sufficient, and the court must be satisfied that more than a prima-facie case exists based on the evidence recorded during the trial.

Case in brief

The revision petition was filed by Man Singh, the father of the deceased, challenging the order dated November 8, 2024, passed by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court had rejected his application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the husband's relatives (father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law/Dewar) to face trial.

It was the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the revisionist's daughter (Victim-Radhika), was solemnized with the accused Manoj Yadav about five years prior to the incident.

The complainant alleged that after the marriage, the husband and his family members started harassing her and demanding a buffalo and a golden ring as additional dowry. It was further alleged that the husband had illicit relations with his sister-in-law, Sunita.

On January 7, 2020, the victim was found dead. The father alleged that the accused persons hanged his daughter after killing her.

An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A (Cruelty), 304B (Dowry Death) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

However, the police found no role of the other family members in the case and thus, submitted a charge sheet only against the husband, Manoj.

During the hearing, the counsel for the revisionist argued that the statements of the informant (PW-1) and another witness (PW-2) recorded during the trial supported the prosecution's version regarding the involvement of the other family members.

On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the in-laws were living separately from the deceased and her husband and hence, they had no role to play in the alleged incident.

It was argued that the deceased committed suicide due to some personal reason and the revisionist has falsely implicated the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in the present case.

Court's Observations

The HC examined the scope of Section 319 CrPC, which empowers the court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offence.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, the High Court noted that the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) CrPC. is limited to the evidence recorded during the trial.

The Court further cited the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 24 and Shiv Baran v. State of UP (2025) to note that a trial court can add an individual as an accused only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of the 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.

The Bench observed: “The law with regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is settled that this power is an extraordinary power, which should be used sparingly with circumspection and while passing the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than primafacie case is made out, or not. For summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. mere prima-facie case is not sufficient”.

Against this backdrop, the bench noted that the Investigating Officer (PW-5) had stated in his testimony that the husband, Manoj Kumar, was living separately from his wife, and it was he who had made the demand for a buffalo and a golden ring.

Thus, finding that the Trial Court's order was passed with proper reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.