LOK RAM versus NIHAL SINGH AND ANR

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 1018 · Decided: 10-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LOK RAM 
v. 
NIHAL SINGH AND ANR 
APRIL I 0, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 319-Power to summon' 
person as accused, against whom action had not been taken earlier-Scope 
of-Held: Power to summon such person is an extra-ordinary power-It is to 
C be used very sparingly only if compelling reasons exist-There would be 
presumption that such person had been an accused person when court took 
cogni=ance of the offence-On facts, application to summon such person 
cannot be rejected on the ground that complainant was an interested 
witness-Thus, High Court rightly directed trial court to proceed against 
D such person by summoning him. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether 
the court has the power to summon a person as accused against whom action 
had not been taken earlier in terms of section 319 of Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The power under section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone 
·including accused already before it. The power is discretionary and must be 
exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 
F It is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court and should be used very 
sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a 
person against whom action had not been taken earlier. If it is satisfied that 
any person other than accused has committed an offence he is to be tried 
together with the accused. The word "evidence" in section 319 contemplates 
G that evidence of\litnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of section 
319 it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person 
when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial 
H 
was commenced. A legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed 
to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. 
11022-G-H; 1023-A-C) 
1018 
-
LOKRAMv. NIHALSINGH [PASAYAT,J.] 
1019 
1.2. In the instant case, trial court rejected the application only on the A 
ground that the complainant was an interested witness and therefore, sufficient 
ground did not exist to take action against the accused persons. The factor 
which weighed with the trial court does not appear to be relevant and, therefore, 
the High Court was right in directing the trial court to proceed against the 
appellant by summoning him Thus the order of the High Court does not suffer B 
from any infirmity. [1023-C-E) 
Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 
(2000) 3 SCC 262; Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, [2004) 7 SCC 792; 
Sohan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1990).SC 2158; Joginder Singh 
and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 339 and Municipal C 
Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., [1983) l SCC 2, relied 
on. 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 of the High Court 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Petition No. 844 of2003. 
K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Kamal Manohar Singh Bakshi and Debasis 
Misra for the Appellant. 
Manish Kumar, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary and Ch. Shamuddin Khan for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant who has been directed to be impleaded as an accused in 
terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I 973 (in short the 
'Code') challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan 
High Court at Jodhpur. 
Background facts are as under: 
Respondent No.1-Nihal Singh 's daughters Saroj and Kanta were married 
to Ishwar Singh and Bhim Singh, both sons of Appellant, Lok Ram. Saroj died 
D 
E 
F 
G 
on 14.9.2001. On 2.9.2001, respondent Nihal Singh filed a complaint at the 
Police Station, Fatehabad (Haryana), alleging commission of offence punishable H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1020 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in 
short the '!PC') and moved an application for seizure of articles purported to 
have been given as dowry. In the complaint it was stated that on 14.9.2001 
Saroj, daughter of complainant Nihal Singh died. When his nephew Mangal 
Singh went to meet Saroj he learnt that she had been killed by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.