Bharat Express

High Court: Court should use caution while using extraordinary power

The court said that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the discretionary power of the court to summon an accused. It cannot be passed mechanically. If absolutely necessary, someone should be summoned for trial along with other accused only on the availability of evidence.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

PRAYAGRAJ

Allahabad High Court has held  that the power to summon an accused for trial is an extraordinary power of the court. It should be used carefully. The court said that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the discretionary power of the court to summon an accused. It cannot be passed mechanically. If absolutely necessary, someone should be summoned for trial along with other accused only on the availability of evidence.

The above said was passed by Mr Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra  while hearing the petition of Rehan, Faizan, Sarfu, Salauddin and Hilal. Senior advocates DS Mishra and CK Mishra pleaded  the petition.

It is known that the complainant, an eyewitness to the murder, lodged the named FIR on 17 July 2017. Police investigation revealed the murder by hired criminals from CCTV footage and mobile location and two other accused were arrested and chargesheet was filed. The statement in the FIR was found not to be true.

With this, the court has partially accepted the revision petition against the summons issued to the petitioners for trial along with the accused in the murder of Jahangir who was shot dead on 16 February 2017 in Mughalpura police station area of ​​Moradabad. The court has canceled the summons issued against three petitioners Faizan, Salauddin and Hilal, but has refused to interfere in the summons issued against Rehan and Sarfu.

On the application under section 319 filed during the trial, the court summoned the accused named in the petition together for trial on the basis of the statement of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses. It has been said in the eyewitness statement that the named accused were seen firing under electric lights. Whose validity was challenged.