Section 190 CrPC| Magistrate Can Also Summon Persons Not Named In Chargesheet/ FIR As An Accused: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 wherein it was held by the Top Court that if there are materials before the Magistrate showing the complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in the commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage, could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence.

With this, the High Court dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by one Yuvraj Naag challenging the February 2023 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur summoning him as an accused to face charges under Section 306 IPC.

The case in brief

Essentially, in this case, an FIR was lodged against six named accused persons including the present revisionist by the first informant, Vijay stating therein that his sister, who was married to accused Pinku about 15 years ago, committed suicide in November 2022 due to harassment inflicted against her by the accused persons including the present revisionist.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, a police report in the form of a charge sheet came to be submitted against the accused, Pinku @ Parmanand/husband of the deceased and Shiv Bhagwan only and not against the revisionist.

However, taking into account the statements of the first informant, mother of the deceased, and another brother of the deceased, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, that even the revisionist harassed the victim/deceased, the CJM took cognizance for the offence under Section 306 IPC and summoned him also including the other accused Pinku and Shiv Bhagwan.

Before the HC, it was argued by his counsel that he was not named in the chargesheet and despite this fact, he was summoned as an accused,

It was further submitted that if the CJM. is found to be entitled to issue process at this stage under Section 190 CrPC against any person against whom no charge sheet has been filed, then in such eventuality, the provision contained under Section 319 CrPC would be rendered nugatory.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the cases of Nahar Singh (supra), Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana 2005 SCC Online SC 1781 and Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 wherein the Top Court had opined that it is the duty of Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence, to go to the root of the matter by identifying the offender and once the Court has done so, it is its duty to take action against such persons irrespective of the person being mentioned in any police report.

The Court further noted that irrespective of the conclusion drawn in the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section 2(i) of Section 173, the Court can apply its independent mind and summon an accused.

In view of this, the court was of the opinion that there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by the Court and hence, the instant criminal revision was dismissed.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court in April this year observed that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of CrPC, can issue a summons to a person even on the basis of the statement under Section 164 CrPC, even though such a person is not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Ashish Kumar Rastogi

Counsel for Opposite Party: GA Anurag Verma

Case title - Yuvraj Naag vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 471 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162

Click Here To Read/Download Order