Test Applied Under Section 319 CrPC Is More Than A Prima Facie Case : Supreme Court

The Court also held that the discretionary powers under Section 319 of the CrPC should be used sparingly where the circumstances of the case warrant.

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vikram Nath, was hearing a criminal appeal arising from Madras High Court's order allowing Section 319 application.

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the accused person/ respondent No. 3, inter-alia, for house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt. As per the complainant, respondent No. 3 came to her home and physically assaulted her son. The FIR also stated that respondent No. 3 was accompanied by her husband and another 'boy'. However, no role was attributed to them.

Consequently, the complainant moved Section 319 application before the Trial Court stating that despite naming the other accused persons/ present appellants, the FIR was only registered against the respondent No. 3. It was further alleged that the investigating authorities omitted the names of the names of the appellants. Besides, it was claimed that during the police examination of witnesses, the appellants' names were purposely not recorded. To bolster this, it was argued in the application that the prosecution witnesses have named the appellants during their chief examination.

However, the Trial Court ultimately dismissed the application, noting that there was no evidence against the appellant's involvement. Further, the complaint concerned does not level any specific allegations.

Nevertheless, when the matter went to the High Court, it allowed the appellants' prayer and directed the Tria Court to implead the appellants as accused persons. Importantly, the High Court reasoned that while exercising its powers under Section 319, the Trial Court should be prima facie satisfied that the accused persons have committed the offence. Against this backdrop, the matter reached before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Court heavily relied upon its decision in Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92. Therein, the Constitution Bench had held:

“Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”

"Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure."

Taking note of this precedent, the Court noted that the High Court's decision was based on prima facie satisfaction of the materials placed on record. These materials also included vague allegations arising from the complaint.

Thus, the Court concluded that the High Court's decision was not in accordance with Hardeep Singh's case. 

“The High Court failed to appreciate that the discretionary powers under Section 319 of the CrPC ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant. In the present case, the Trial Court Order was well reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity. Moreover, the materials on record could not be said to have satisfied the threshold envisaged under Hardeep Singh (Supra) i.e., more than a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction.,” the Court recorded in its judgment.

In view of this, the appeal was allowed and impugned order was set aside.

Case Title: N. MANOGAR vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., Diary No.- 27058 – 2021

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Click here to read/ download the order