JITENDRA NATH MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 02-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
642
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 642
JITENDRA NATH MISHRA
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022)
JUNE 02, 2023
[DIPANKAR DATTA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of
power under – Held: What is essential for exercise of the power u/
s.319 is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a
person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who
has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together
with the accused already arraigned – However, the court holding a
trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by s.319 must not act
mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on
record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction
preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as
formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of
satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead
to conviction – In the present case, the FIR disclosed offences having
been committed by one ‘D’, his brother (the appellant) and an
unknown person – Complainant and his wife described the manner
of assault inflicted by ‘D’ and the appellant and the utterances used
by them touching the caste of the complainant and his wife – It is
not that involvement of the appellant in the crime was referred to
for the first time in the court – Thus, though, the appellant was not
named in the FIR but, that by itself cannot be held to be decisive –
Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of ‘D’ and he is
named as one of the assailants, the material for forming the requisite
satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent – Special Court formed
the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face
trial with ‘D’ – Impugned order affirming the order of Special Court
cannot be faulted – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r), (s) – Penal Code,
1860 – ss. 419, 420, 323, 406, 506.
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 :
[2014] 2 SCR 1 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
Case Law Reference
[2014] 2 SCR 1
relied on
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.978 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No.303 of 2022.
Girijesh Pandey, Sarabh S., Ms. Alpana Pandey, Ramjee Pandey,
Advs. for the Appellant.
S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This appeal, by special leave, takes exception to an order dated
1st June, 2022 of the Allahabad High Court. The impugned order dismissed
an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989
(hereafter ‘1989 Act’). Under challenge in the appeal was a summoning
order dated 16th October, 2021 passed by the relevant Special Court
under the 1989 Act, in exercise of power conferred on him by Section
319, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter, ‘Cr. PC’).
2. A First Information Report (hereafter ‘FIR’) came 
to 
be
registered  by the Khalilabad Police Station, District Sant Kabir Nagar,
under Sections 419, 420, 323, 406 and 506, Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r)
& (s) of the 1989 Act on the basis of information furnished by the
complainant. Accusations were levelled against (1) Dharmendra Nath
Mishra (hereafter ‘Dharmendra’); (2) brother of Dharmendra; and (3)
an ‘unknown person’ of having assaulted and abused the complainant
and his wife, amounting to commission of offences punishable under the
aforesaid provisions. Investigation of the FIR culminated in a charge-
sheet under Section 173(2) of the Cr. PC being filed, wherein Dharmendra
was shown as the sole accused. The Special Court constituted under
the 1989 Act took cognisance of the offence and framed charges against
Dharmendra, whereafter the trial commenced. In course thereof, the
complainant and his wife deposed as PW-1 & PW-2 respectively.
According to them, Dharmendra and the appellant together with an
unknown person had assaulted them apart from hurling caste related
abuses.
JITENDRA NATH MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
3. At this stage, the Special Court passed the order dated
16.10.2021 summoning the appellant for trial along with Dharmendra
for offences punishable under Sections 32

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