LexSHIV BARAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 229 : 2025 INSC 860 Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025) 16 July 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court quashing the summons issued against respondent u/s.319 CrPC by the trial court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Exercise of power u/s.319 – High Court quashed the summons issued against respondent u/s.319 by the trial court – Challenge to: Held: Summoning order passed by the trial court restored and the impugned order set aside – Power u/s.319 must be exercised sparingly – However, where the evidence reveals the complicity of the prospective accused, it becomes obligatory for the authority to exercise the power provided u/s.319 – High Court proceeded to conduct a mini trial solely relying upon the affidavits submitted before the Superintendent of Police qua the innocence of respondent – It erred in giving a categorical finding on the merits of the injured eyewitness not to have named respondent, which is based on erroneous assumption and contrary to the factual position – High Court erred in observing that witnesses have stated nothing about the motive of the crime, that the depositions are silent on the aspect of common intention, absence of the manner or sequence of occurrence of the incident, or that it cannot be inferred who is the aggressor – Respondent, although not charge sheeted, was named in the FIR, and the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses, although prima facie, suggests the complicity of respondent, specific role being assigned to him, indicating that he was present at the scene of the occurrence, armed with a stick – High Court tried to apply the same standard in deciding this application as is * Author 230 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports ordinarily used at the end of the trial in determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused, whereas it ought to have considered that the standard of satisfaction required is short of the standard necessary for passing final judgment after trial. [Paras 22-26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Exercise of power u/s.319 – Statutory requisites for summoning person not being the accused – Principles to be followed by the trial court while exercising power u/s.319 – Stated. [Paras 14, 15] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92; Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat [2018] 13 SCR 822 : (2019) 12 SCC 644; Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. [2021] 6 SCR 219 : (2021) 12 SCC 608; S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [2017] 10 SCR 29 : (2017) 16 SCC 226; Omi v. State of M.P. [2025] 1 SCR 266 : (2025) 2 SCC 621; Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2017] 3 SCR 374 : (2017) 7 SCC 706 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Quashing the summons issued u/s.319 CrPC; Exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC; Motive; Common intention; Aggressor; Stage of final adjudication; Summoning order. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRR No. 5517 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Gaurav, Shaurya Krishna, Shivendra Vikram Singh, Ravi Bhushan, Gaurav Srivastava. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 231 Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. & Anr. Advs. for the Respondents: Adarsh Upadhyay, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Shoaib Ahmad Khan, Sandeep Garausa, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Ms. Alia Bano Zaidi. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted 2. The instant appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant, arises out of judgment and order dated 23rd July 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.5517 of 2023, quashing the summons issued against Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Respondent No.2 herein, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 vide order dated 28th September 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaushambi2 in Sessions Trial No.109 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.303 of 2017. 3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.