HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7512 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Saumitra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2021), registered under Sections 354, 504, 307 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, whereby the learned Trial Court summoned the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with other accused persons. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a First Information Report dated 28.06.2021 in respect of an alleged incident dated 27.06.2021 at about 9:00 PM. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused Rakesh @ Sultana and Satya Prakash, attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant while she was accompanying her disabled husband, and upon resistance, co-accused Rakesh allegedly fired upon her husband, causing injuries. During investigation, the injured was medically examined and the statements of the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the injured, as well as several eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded. 4. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, multiple independent witnesses denied the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and supported his innocence. Upon consideration of the entire material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated the appellant and submitted the charge-sheet only against the co-accused persons. However, during trial, on the basis of the depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the learned Trial Court, without any new or cogent evidence and without proper application of judicial mind, summoned the appellant to face Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Shukla, Ram Saumitra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prabhakar Singh Shri Ram .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) trial vide order dated 10.07.2025, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to the case reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, along with other connected petitions, and has referred to paragraphs 105 and 106 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereinbelow: "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross- examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C., the purpose of providing that if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." 106. 6. Referring to the aforesaid, he submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, and thus the same should be exercised sparingly. It has further been held that much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity is required where the Trial Court exercises power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. He has further drawn attention to the case reported in (2017) 7 SCC 706, Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, and referred to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow: "14. When we translate the aforesaid principles with their application to the facts of this case, we gather an impression that the trial court acted in a casual and cavalier manner in passing the summoning order against the appellants. ... Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny." 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly discussed all relevant aspects of the matter in the impugned order and, therefore, the said order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. CRLA No. 7512 of 2025 2 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the appellant was admittedly not charge-sheeted and was exonerated by the Investigating Officer after a thorough investigation, wherein his presence at the place of occurrence was not found. 10. This Court further finds that no new, strong, or cogent evidence has emerged during the course of trial so as to justify invocation of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court itself has observed that upon perusal of all the aforesaid evidence and after analyzing the entire material on record, it is evident that from the statements given by the witnesses before the Court, the involvement of the accused Shriram along with the co- accused in the commission of the alleged incident is prima facie disclosed. The statements of the prosecution witnesses, at best, amount to mere reiteration of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and do not satisfy the higher degree of satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. Further, Section 319 Cr.P.C. envisages an extraordinary power conferred upon the Court to do substantial justice and, therefore, should be exercised cautiously, particularly where the investigating agency has found no evidence against the person sought to be summoned. The very purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no guilty person escapes trial; therefore, the discovery of further evidence must disclose more than a prima facie case. 12. The settled law is that the Court should not exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual or cavalier manner; however, where the Court arrives at a conclusion that there exists more than prima facie evidence against an accused, such power can certainly be exercised. 13. In the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), it has been held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power to be exercised only when there is strong and cogent evidence against a person. 14. The Apex Court in Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), has also held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage during the trial and that “evidence” means the material brought before the Court during trial, whereas the material collected during investigation can be used only for corroboration. 15. The Apex Court, in the above-noted case, further observed that the trial court must record its satisfaction to the effect that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if left unrebutted, would lead to the conviction of the accused persons. In the absence of such satisfaction, the trial court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the present case, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below to the effect that there exists more than a prima facie case, or a much stronger case, against the appellant and that, if such evidence remains unrebutted, there is a likelihood of conviction. The learned Trial Court has thus failed to properly apply the law laid down by the Apex Court. CRLA No. 7512 of 2025 3 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 suffers from illegality and perversity and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2021), registered under Sections 354, 504, and 307 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, is hereby set aside and reversed so far as it relates to the present appellant. May 6, 2026 pks CRLA No. 7512 of 2025 4 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad