SHANKAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 02-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 10 : 2024 INSC 366
Shankar 
v. 
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2367 of 2024)
02 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether there is sufficient material against the appellant prompting 
the trial court to pass a summoning order u/s. 319 Cr.P.C.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Summoning order 
u/s. 319 – Legality of – Appellants facing trial for offence u/s. 
302 – Summoning order passed u/s. 319 by the trial court – High 
Court refused to quash the summoning order – Correctness:
Held: Degree of satisfaction required to exercise power u/s. 319 
is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power – Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, the 
power can be exercised – It requires much stronger evidence than 
mere probability of his complicity – Appellants were named in the 
first information statement by the first informant despite not being 
an eyewitness to the offence, however, in the statement u/s. 161 
Cr.P.C, first informant clarified that her family had a long-standing 
enmity with appellants’ family; that the names of appellants were 
written in the FIR falsely and without full information; and that the 
appellants were not involved in the murder of her son – Even in 
the charge sheet, the names of the appellants were not mentioned 
as accused – It is only in her deposition before the trial court the 
names of the accused resurfaced again – Almost a year later, 
the prosecution chose to file an application u/s. 319 – Change of 
circumstance which the prosecution seeks to contend on the basis 
of first informant’s deposition does not satisfy the requirement of s. 
319 at all – First informant not being an eye-witness, her deposition 
not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s. 319 
to summon the appellants – No other witnesses deposed anything 
against the appellants – No documentary evidence collected against 
the appellants – Also no role attributed to the appellants – These 
factors when looked in a holistic manner, make it clear that the 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
11
Shankar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s. 319 
not met with – Trial court erred in allowing the application u/s. 319 
and issuing summons to the appellants – High Court having failed 
to quash the order of summons, the order passed by the trial court 
as also by the High Court set aside. [Paras 18-26]
Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : 
(2014) 3 SCC 92 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Sufficient material; Summoning order; Degree of satisfaction; 
Power u/s. 319 CrPC; Discretionary and an extra-ordinary power.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2367 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 30221 of 2017
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2368 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Advs. for the Appellant.
Yasharth Kant, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Ankit Goel, Dhawal Uniyal, 
Nikhil Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeals arise out of a decision of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad dated 04.04.2023 in Application under Section 
482 No. 30221 of 2017, whereby the High Court refused to quash 
a summoning order dated 24.08.2017 passed under Section 319 
12
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of the Cr.P.C. by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur 
Dehat, where the Appellants herein were directed to face a trial for 
offence under Section 302 IPC. Both the Appellants being identically 
placed, their appeals are being dealt with together. 
3.	
The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there is 
sufficient material against the Appellant prompting the Trial Court to 
pass a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The principles of 
law being settled by the judgments of the constitutional benches of 
this Court, this question hinges upon the facts of the present case, 
which is as follows: 
4.	
Facts and investigation: On 10.05.2011, the first informant (PW-
1), who is the mother of the deceased, got an FIR lodged at P.S. 
Ghatampur, informing that her son was found dead near a tubewell 
in the wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.