JILE SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 12-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 201 
JILE SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2012) 
JANUARY 12, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.200, 204, 207, 
208, 209, 319 - Charge-sheet filed against accused-Hin a 
murder case - Investigating Officer found that no case was C 
made out against the appellant - Issuance of summons by 
the Magistrate against the appellant on a private complaint 
u/s.200 made by Respondent No.2 after committal of 
accused-H to the Sessions Court - Whether addition of 
appellant to the array of the accused in a case pending D 
.· before the Sessions Court can be done at a stage prior to 
collecting any evidence - Held: Once the Sessions Court 
takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal 
order, the only other stage when the court is· empowered to 
add any other person to the array of the accused is after E 
reaching evidence collection when powers u/s.319 can be 
invoked - In the instant case, if the order passed by the 
Magistrate in issuing summons against the appellant on the 
private complaint which was confirmed by the High Court is 
allowed to stand, it would mean addition of the appellant to 
F 
the array of the accused in a pending case before the 
Sessions Judge at a stage prior to collecting any evidence 
by that Court - This course is impermissible - The stage of 
s.209 having been reached in the case, it was not open to the 
Magistrate to exercise the power u/s.204(1)(b) and issue 
G 
summons to the appellant - Order of the Magistrate was totally 
without jurisdiction. 
Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 
8: (1998) 7 sec 149; Kishori Singh and ors. VS. State of 
201 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A Bihar and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 11; Raj Kishore Prasad vs. 
State of Bihar, 1996(2) Suppl. SCR 125: (1996) 4 sec 495; 
India Carat (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kamataka 1989 (1) SCR 718: 
(1989) 2 sec 132 - relied on. 
B 
Hareram Satpathy vs. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors., 1979 (1) 
SCR 349: 1978 (4) SCC 58; Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra 
Bafna & Anr. 2009 (11) SCR 234: 2009 (7) SCC 685 • held 
in applicable. 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 8 
relied on 
Paras 5, 
9 
(200~) 13 sec 11 
relied on 
Paras 5, 
9 
D 
1996(2) Suppl. SCR 125 relied on 
Para 8 
1989 (1) SCR 718 
relied on 
Para 8 
1979 (1) SCR 349 
held in applicable Paras 6, 
E 
10 
2009 (11) SCR 234 
held in applicable Paras 6, 
10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
F No. 121 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 110.03.2011 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 
1241 of2011. 
G 
Manoj Saxena, Khem Chand, Shwatank Sailakwal (for Dr. 
Kailash Chand) for the Appellant. 
Ratnakar Dash, Vikram Patralekh, Shailendra Kr. Mishra, 
Sarika Singh, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Anuvrat Sharma and 
H Alka Sinha for the Respondents. 
JILE SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
203 
A 
2. A certain Bharat Lal Sharma was done to death on 
October 26, 2008. His father (respondent No. 2 herein) 
informed the Police Station Kosikalan on the next day, i.e., 
B 
October 27, 2008 at 8 a.m. that he received an information in 
the morning at abcut 7 a.m. that his son Bharat Lal Sharma had 
been murdered and his dead body was lying in the agricultural 
field of Ghure son of Gaisi, 'Jal' resident of Tumaura. On·receipt 
of this information, he (respondent No. 2 herein ) went to the C 
spot and found that the body of his son was lying in blood. His 
son was killed with some sharp edged weapon the previous 
night. He requested the police to register First Information 
Report (FIR) against unknown accused persons and take 
appropriate action in the matter. On this information, an FIR was 
D 
registered and investigation commenced. On conclusion of the 
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet 
naming one Hari Singh as an accused ·having committed the 
murder of Bharat Lal Sharma. On the basis of the material 
collected by the Investigating Officer, no case was found out 
E 
against the present appellant-Jile Singh and the Investigating 
Officer concluded that the appellant has been falsely named in 
the course of investigation. 
3. On May 2, 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, 
F 
committed the accused-Hari Singh to the Court of Sessions 
Judge, Mathura for trial. It was then that the complainant-
respondent 

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