LexOMI @ OMKAR RATHORE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 266 : 2025 INSC 27 Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17781 of 2024) 03 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards summoning a person as accused for facing the trial, when the said person was named in the FIR but not chargesheeted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – On facts, closure report filed by the I.O. exonerating the petitioners from the alleged offence – In examination-in- chief, the first informant categorically deposed against the petitioners and also attributed a specific overt act – On basis thereof, an application filed u/s.319 to summon the petitioners as accused for facing the trial along with the other co-accused – Trial court summoned them in exercise of its powers u/s.319 to face the trial – High Court upheld the said the order – Correctness: Held: High Court committed no error in passing the impugned order – Person is named in the FIR by the complainant but the police, after investigation finds no role of that particular person and files charge-sheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused – Closure report filed by the police in the instant case is yet to be looked into by the court concerned, and has not been accepted till this date – However, the closure report now pales into insignificance in view of the order passed by the trial court u/s.319 summoning the petitioners to face the trial – It would have been in fitness of things if the court concerned would have looked into the closure report at the earliest and passed an appropriate [2025] 1 S.C.R. 267 Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. order one way or the other after hearing the defacto-complainant. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 20] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Principles of law as regards s.319: Held: 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 – Such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial – Trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the chargesheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence – Power of the court u/s.319 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 chargesheet by the police against the person concerned – Phrase 'any person not being the accused' in s.319 clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting s.319(1) is that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal court are included in the said expression – It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer – When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the IO hardly matters – If satisfaction of IO is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of s.319 would be frustrated. [Para 21] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86 – followed. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another [2021] 6 SCR 219 : (2021) 12 SCC 608; S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [2017] 10 SCR 29 : (2017) 16 SCC 226 – referred to. 268 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.