2007 (4) TMI 735 - SC - Indian Laws

Death of the injured - commission of an offence u/s 307/324 IPC - converted to one u/s 302 IPC - Application filed for summoning the appellant u/s 319 of the CrPC - witness s chief examination is only done - application u/s 319 CrPC dismissed at this stage - HELD THAT - The Trial Judge as noticed by us in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to arrive at his satisfaction. If he thought that the matter should receive his due consideration only after the cross-examination of the witnesses is over no exception thereto could be taken far less at the instance of a witness and when the State was not aggrieved by the same. It is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the CrPC it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness. For the said purpose the court concerned may also like to consider other evidence. We are therefore of the view that the High Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Summoning the appellant based on witness testimony.
2. High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Entertaining an application against the Trial Judge's order.
3. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the Trial Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
4. Interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Requisite ingredients and judicial exercise of discretion.

Issue 1: Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
A First Information Report was filed against the appellant, but no chargesheet was submitted against them. The witness, in his examination, alleged the appellant's involvement in the incident. An application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant based on this testimony. The Trial Judge initially refused the application, stating that the witness's statement did not provide sufficient grounds for summoning the appellant at that stage.

Issue 2: High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The respondent filed an application before the High Court against the Trial Judge's order. The High Court allowed the application, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the Trial Judge's discretionary jurisdiction should have been respected, while the respondent argued that the appellant's name in the FIR and witness statements justified the High Court's decision.

Issue 3: Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the Trial Judge:
The Trial Judge, as per Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., needed to arrive at a satisfaction regarding summoning the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of judicially exercising discretion and arriving at a proper satisfaction based on evidence before summoning an individual not facing trial. The Trial Judge's decision to wait for further evidence before considering summoning the appellant was deemed appropriate.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity for fulfilling the ingredients of Section 319 before summoning an individual not facing trial. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that invoking this provision should be done sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist. The Court also stressed the importance of considering evidence and arriving at a likelihood of conviction before exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 319.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that the Trial Judge's decision to wait for further evidence before considering summoning the appellant was appropriate. The Court emphasized the importance of fulfilling the requirements of Section 319 and exercising discretionary jurisdiction judiciously.