MANOGAR & ANR. [APPELLANT(S)] Vs.  THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 8696 of 2021

(2JB, VIKRAM NATH and SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA JJ.)

Facts: The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant(s) assailing the correctness of a decision of the Madras High Court (the “High Court”) dated 13.09.2021, setting aside an order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Ld. XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (the “Trial Court”) whereunder, the Trial Court rejected the application instituted by the Complainant under Section 216 read with Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”) seeking (i) the summoning of; and (ii) the impleadment of the Appellant(s) as accused person(s) in connection with Case Crime No. 7243 of 2018 under Section(s) 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”).

Issue: Whether the High court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. in the present case?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted before us that the High Court has exercised jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC and erroneously reversed the Trial Court Order without appreciating (i) that the allegation qua the Appellants are vague and omnibus; (ii) that there is no evidence on record to suggest the involvement of the Appellants in the alleged offence; and (iii) the dicta laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

On the other hand, the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the Respondent(s) have vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention; and submitted that the High Court has rightly appreciated the allegations disclosed in the underlying complaint, the statement(s) recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the examination-in-chief of the PWs to conclude that the evidence on record underscored the involvement of the Petitioners in the commission of a crime and accordingly, the Impugned Order could not be faulted on account of any perversity in view of our decision in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 7 SCC 344.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “In our considered view, the approach adopted by the High Court was not in consonance with this Court’s opinion in Hardeep Singh. The High Court failed to appreciate that the discretionary powers under Section 319 of the CrPC ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant. In the present case, the Trial Court Order was well reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity. Moreover, the materials on record could not be said to have satisfied the threshold envisaged under Hardeep Singh (Supra) i.e., more than a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction.”