A single judge dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court found no illegality in the lower court's order exercising its discretionary power sparingly.
Revision dismissed; order accepting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. remains valid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1121 of 2020
Revisionist :- Abhilash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Revisionist :- Pusp Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
The present revision is being filed by the revisionist Abhilash Singh challenging the order dated 11.02.2020 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application no. 55kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C..
I have perused the order impugned, the requirement of law for summoning a non accused as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is as enunciated in celebrated judgement of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92 , paragraph 105 is quoted herein below:-
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the 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 led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner."
The casual and general approach for taking the name of non accused person in the statement is not sufficient in exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and as such evaluating the impugned order from these guidelines, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the present revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Abhishek Sri.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application to summon a non-accused as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶6
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (3) SCC 92 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhilash Singh
State Of U.P.
Ors
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
