HARDEI versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 30-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R.881 
HARD EI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 186of2016) 
MARCH 30,'2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.] 
Code ofCriminalProcedure,1973: s.319- Power to proceed 
against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence -
Summoning order - Cri111inal proceedings against two persons 
alleged to have embezzled huge amount from official account of 
MNREGA scheme - After examination of some witnesses, an 
application uls.319 filed by prosecution - It was urged in the 
application that involvement of Block Development Officer and 
appellant, the then Block Pramukh of Panchayat had emerged -
Magistrate held that prima facie offence was made out against both 
the proposed accused and allowed.s.319 application - High Court 
affirmed the order of Magistrate - On appeal, held: It is well 
accepted thal in criminal juri.1prude11ce FI.R. may not contain all 
the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused -
It is not' expected ta be an encyclopedia evm of facts already known 
- The fact that Police chose not to send up a suspect to face trial 
does not affect power of the trial court uls. 319 to sw111i10n such a 
person on account of evidence recorded during trial -,- This is the 
factual scenario in the case at hand also - It would not be proper 
to deal with detailed merits of the prosecution case or the defence 
c~se at this juncture - Hence while dismissing the appeal, it is made 
clear. that the observations made in the impugned orders or this 
order shall not have any adverse effect on the case of either of the 
parties. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that 
F.I.R. may not contain all the details of the occnrrence or even 
the names of all the accused. It is not expected to be an 
encyclopedia even of facts already known. ThHc ure varieties of 
881 
A 
13 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A crimes and by their very nature, details of some crimes can be 
unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation. This is more 
true in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or cases 
not founded on eye witness accounts. The fact that Police chose 
not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the 
B 
trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon such a 
person on account of evidence recorded during trial. This is the 
factual scenario in the case at hand also. It would not be proper 
to deal with detailed merits of the prosecution case or the defence 
case at this juncture. The appellant shall be at liberty to take all 
c the defence available to her, in accorda.nce with law, in course of 
the trial. [Paras 9, 10) [884-H; 885-A-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 186 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2014 of the High Court 
D of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 2554 of2013. 
R. K. Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Ms. Kheyali Sarkar, Rajat Kapoor, 
Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Sovind Kaushik, Anis Ahmed Khan, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
E 
Garvesh Kabra, Abhishek Chaudhary, Utkarsh Jaiswal, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. This appeal is directed against 
order dated 29.01.2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at 
F 
Allahabad dismissing Criminal Revision No.2554/2013 preferred by the 
appellant seeking relief against order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, the trial Court, summoning the 
appellant, in exercise of power under Section 319, Code of Criminal 
Procedure, to face trial in Sessions Trial No.9191 of 2010 (State Vs. 
G Omkar& Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.1364 of2010 under Sections 
420/467/468/4711409, !PC pertaining to Police StationAmadpur, District 
Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. 
2. Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant facts 
may be noted in brief. The FIR bearing No. 53 of 2010 leading to this 
H 
case was lodged on 2om July 2010 by R.D. Sharma, the Project Director 
HARDEi v. STATE OF U.P. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
883 
of a scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rurnl Employment 
A 
Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MNREGA' Scheme). One 
Rahul Yadav, a Junior Clerk in the Amroha Block Office and one Omkar 
Singh were named as accused with allegation that they had, as per enquiry 
report, prima facie embezzled an amount to the tune ofRs.49 Lacs from 
official account for the MNREGA Scheme, the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.