Trial court can summon accused despite police clean chit, says Supreme Court

The judgment came while upholding orders by a Gwalior trial court and the Madhya Pradesh high court summoning two individuals to face trial in a 2018 murder case, despite their names being excluded from the charge sheet.

New Delhi A clean chit or closure report filed by the police cannot circumscribe the trial court’s power to summon individuals as accused, the Supreme Court has held, reinforcing the vital role of courts in safeguarding justice by independently assessing evidence presented during criminal trials.

Trial court can summon accused despite police clean chit, says Supreme Court

“The trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial,” held a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

The January 3 judgment, released on Monday, reaffirmed the expansive powers of trial courts under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon individuals as accused, even if they were exonerated during the police investigation. Section 319 of CrPC allows trial courts to summon individuals who were either dropped during the investigation or were not initially named as accused but whose role emerges from evidence during the trial. This section has been replaced with the exact same provision under Section 358 in the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), effective from July 1, 2024.

In its judgment, the top court underlined that the power under Section 319 of CrPC is independent of the findings of investigating officers and must be exercised based on the evidence presented during the trial. It clarified that materials in the police charge sheet or case diary do not constitute evidence for the purpose of summoning accused under the section.

“The power of the court under Section 319 of CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR...nor the same is dependent upon submission of the charge sheet by the police against the person concerned,” said the bench, adding only evidence adduced during the trial can trigger the court’s power under this provision.

The judgment came while upholding orders by a Gwalior trial court and the Madhya Pradesh high court summoning two individuals to face trial in a 2018 murder case, despite their names being excluded from the charge sheet.

The judgment stressed that trial courts are not bound by the conclusions drawn by investigating officers. Even if a closure report is filed against a person, it held, courts retain the authority to summon them as accused if credible evidence emerges during trial proceedings.

“A court is not powerless. If strong evidence surfaces during trial implicating a person not named in the charge sheet, the trial court can summon them to face trial,” the judgment stated.

It also urged trial courts not to reject an application for the addition of new accused solely on the basis of the police probe. “When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance, the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of investigating officer is to be treated as determinative, the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated,” underscored the judgment.

Simultaneously, the court elaborated on the principles governing Section 319 of CrPC, stating that this discretionary power must be exercised sparingly and with caution. While trial courts have wide latitude, they must ensure that summoning an individual as an accused is based cogent evidence, rather than mere suspicion or probability.

“Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances so warrant. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court should such power be exercised, and not in a casual or cavalier manner,” the bench emphasised.

The court noted that the standard for summoning under Section 319 is higher than that required for framing charges but falls short of requiring evidence sufficient for conviction.

The Supreme Court also noted in this judgment that pending closure reports should be acted upon promptly to prevent delays and uncertainty in the judicial process.

By affirming the expansive scope of the pertinent provision, the apex court underscored the principle that courts must not be be mere rubber stamps for police investigations and have the responsibility to ensure that all culpable individuals are brought to trial.

The judgment arose from a 2018 murder case in Gwalior, where the FIR named seven individuals, including the two petitioners who challenged their summoning. While the police investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet against five accused, a closure report was filed for the two, citing lack of evidence. However, during the trial, the complainant gave testimony implicating the two petitioners and attributed specific roles to them in the crime. Based on this testimony, the trial court invoked Section 319 of CrPC and summoned the petitioners to face trial alongside the other accused. The petitioners challenged the summoning order before the Madhya Pradesh high court, which upheld the trial court’s decision by a judgment in October last year.