PERIYASAMI AND ORS. versus S. NALLASAMY

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 14-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
PERIYASAMI AND ORS.
v.
S. NALLASAMY
(Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2019)
MARCH 14, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence – Application u/s. 319, to summon accused
named in the application as additional accused – Rejected by the
magistrate, however, allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
U/s. 319 additional accused can be summoned only if there is more
than prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge
but which is less than the satisfaction required at the time of
conclusion of the trial convicting the accused – On facts, in FIR or
in the statements recorded u/s. 161, the names of the appellants or
any other description not given so as to identify them – Allegations
in the FIR are vague – No strong or cogent evidence to make the
appellants stand the trial for the offences u/ss 147, 448, 294(b)
and 506 IPC – Additional accused cannot be summoned u/s. 319 in
casual and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent
evidence – Thus, the High Court erred in setting aside the order
passed by the magistrate only on the basis of the statements of some
of the witnesses examined by the complainant – Order passed by
the High Court set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The instant case is basically a matrimonial
dispute wherein, the husband who is the complainant has levelled
allegations against the wife and her other family members. Though
in the FIR, the complainant has mentioned that 15 women and 35
men came by vehicles but the names of 11 persons alone were
disclosed in the FIR. [Para 12][1012-A-B]
1.2 In the statements recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, during the course of investigation,
the complainant and his witnesses have not disclosed any other
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1005
1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
name except the 11 persons named in the FIR. Thus, the
complainant has sought to cast net wide so as to include numerous
other persons while moving an application under Section 319 of
the Code without there being primary evidence about their role
in house trespass or of threatening the complainant. Large
number of people will not come to the house of the complainant
and would return without causing any injury as they were said to
be armed with weapons like crowbar, knife and ripper etc.
[Para 13][1012-C-D]
1.3 In the First Information Report or in the statements
recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the names of the
appellants or any other description have not been given so as to
identify them. The allegations in the FIR are vague and can be
used any time to include any person in the absence of description
in the First Information Report to identify such person. There is
no assertion in respect of the villages to which the additional
accused belong. Therefore, there is no strong or cogent evidence
to make the appellants stand the trial for the offences under
Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506 IPC. The additional accused
cannot be summoned under Section 319 of the Code in casual
and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent evidence.
Under Section 319 of the Code additional accused can be
summoned only if there is more than prima facie case as is
required at the time of framing of charge but which is less than
the satisfaction required at the time of conclusion of the trial
convicting the accused. [Para 14][1012-E-G]
1.4 The High Court set aside the order passed by the
magistrate only on the basis of the statements of some of the
witnesses examined by the complainant. Mere disclosing the
names of the appellants cannot be said to be strong and cogent
evidence to make them to stand trial for the offence under Section
319 of the Code, especially when the complainant is a husband
and has initiated criminal proceedings against family of his in-
laws and when their names or other identity were not disclosed
at the first opportunity. The order passed by the High Court is
not sustainable in law and is set aside and that of the trial court is
restored and the application under Section 319 of the Code is
dismissed. [Paras 15, 16][1012-G, H; 1013-A, B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92
: [2014] 2 SCR 1 – relied on.
Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State of
Gujarat &

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