The Supreme Court said that the courts have the right to take action against anyone who seems guilty in a case, even if their name is not included in the FIR or charge sheet. At the same time, the apex court also said that this right should be exercised very carefully, not as a weapon to disturb anyone.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was on Wednesday hearing a case related to Section 319 of the East Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC). Section 319 is related to the power to take action against the people who seem guilty of a crime. The bench said that this provision gives the court the right to take action against the person whose involvement comes up on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation or hearing, even if he has not been nominated as an accused in the case. If the bench proves him guilty, he can also be made an accused.
Also read: Maharashtra: ‘Divyangjan Commissioner will be forcibly sent on leave’, Minister’s assurance on demand to suspend
Power should be used very carefully
The bench further said, there is no need to say that power should be used with great care, not with negligence, cruelty or negligence, because its purpose is only to pursue justice, not to disturb a person or to be a means to misuse the process of law. The apex court pronounced the decision on an appeal on the Allahabad High Court filed against an order of July last year. The High Court had canceled the summons issued by a trial court in Kaushambi against a person under Section 319 in a 2017 murder case.
Also read: MyAdhaar Portal: UIDAI initiative to notice death, give information about the late member; 1.17 crore number closed so far
Allahabad High Court’s decision canceled
Considering the current case, the bench said that the evidence of three alleged eye witnesses reveals prima facie collusion of Rajendra Prasad, which was summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of CRPC. Accepting the appeal filed by the complainant Shiv Baran (brother of the deceased), the bench quashed the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court summons order. The bench directed all the parties to appear in the trial court on August 28 and ordered to complete the case within 18 months.
