Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Tukaram Nagappa Mutnale, Avakka Tukaram Mutnale, and Mahesh Tukaram Mutnale, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi, in S.C. No. 84/2017. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to array the petitioners as accused in the case. The case originally involved charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that there was no prima facie evidence against them and that the trial court had mechanically allowed the application without applying its mind. The State opposed the revision, arguing that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence. The High Court examined the material on record and found that the evidence did not disclose any specific overt act or role of the petitioners in the alleged dowry demand or cruelty. The court observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. Since the trial court had failed to apply its mind and the order was based on mere suspicion, the High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Summoning of Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Power to summon additional accused must be exercised only if there is strong and cogent evidence against such person, not on mere suspicion or conjecture - The trial court allowed the prosecution's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to array the petitioners as accused in a case under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - The High Court set aside the order, holding that the evidence on record did not disclose any specific overt act or role of the petitioners in the alleged dowry demand or cruelty - Held that the trial court failed to apply its mind and the order was liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and arraying the petitioners as accused in the absence of prima facie evidence against them.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi, in S.C. No. 84/2017, thereby quashing the summoning of the petitioners as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Law Points
- Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires strong and cogent evidence
- not mere suspicion
- to summon additional accused
- trial court must apply its mind to the evidence on record before issuing process
- revisional court can interfere if order is perverse or without jurisdiction.
