S. 319 CrPC | Suspect Not Summoned At Cognizance Stage Can't Be Summoned Later Based On Same Material: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once cognizance of an offence has been taken and the accused placed in Column No.12 (suspect) of the chargesheet is not summoned, he cannot be summoned subsequently without there being any additional evidence on record.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed,

“Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon the Accused placed in Column No.12 subsequently, but the question is at what stage and in what circumstances such power can be exercised. The Court in exercise of its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., would be justified to summon an accused who is placed in Column No.12, only if there is subsequently some material either by way of subsequent investigations or something emerges in the evidence recorded during the trial.”

Reliance was placed on Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) where a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that power under Section 319 CrPC can only be exercised “on evidence recorded in the Court and not the material gathered at the investigation stage, which has already been tested at the stage of taking cognizance”.

In the case at hand, the Petitioner, among others, was booked in a Cheating FIR for allegedly duping an American citizen of Indian origin of ₹2 crore.

After investigation however, the Petitioner's name was placed in Column 12 (suspect).

The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the two accused named in the chargesheet but not the Petitioner.

Only later however, the Petitioner came to be summoned in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC.

Petitioner argued that this summoning order virtually amounted to review/recall of Order of Summoning passed by the Predecessor Court, which had duly applied its mind while taking cognizance on the Chargesheet and had only summoned the two accused.

It was argued that no new facts have come on the record which justified the summoning of Petitioner on a subsequent date.

Agreeing, the High Court said,

“Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is discretionary and exemplary power which must be exercised sparingly…It cannot be exercised by the Magistrate only because he is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing the offence. Only when strong and cogent evidence is produced before the Court that such powers can be exercised but not in a cavalier manner.”

As such, the Court allowed the plea and quash the subsequent summoning order.

Appearance: Mr. Amit Khemka, Ms. Himani Singh and Ms. Tanvi Agrawal, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

Case title: Anil Singh v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1555

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 2911/2017

Click here to read order