A court may summon persons excluded from the police report based on materials already on record.

The petitioners, originally arrayed as accused in Crime No. 86 of 2025, were omitted from the police final report on the ground that they were not involved in the occurrence.

On the de facto complainant’s protest petition, the Sessions Court considered the final report, witness statements and CCTV footage, disagreed with the investigating agency, and issued summons to the deleted accused.

The petitioners challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing, among other things, that the Court could not implicate them without trial evidence or notice and could not rely on the footage to identify them.

1. Whether the trial Court could disagree with the police decision to omit the petitioners and issue process based on material already forming part of the record, including CCTV footage.

2. Whether the summoning order was liable to be set aside because the petitioners had not been subjected to cross-examination or given notice before being summoned.

Section 528 of the BNSS was invoked as the basis for the petition.

Relying on Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306, and Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 2 SCC 188, the Court held that the Court considering the case is not bound by the investigating officer’s opinion and may act on a protest petition or issue process where the material discloses a prima facie case; at the process stage, the question is whether there are prima facie grounds to proceed, not whether guilt has been established.

The Court also distinguished the petitioners’ reliance on Section 319 CrPC, holding that the impugned decision was based on existing material and a prima facie assessment.

The Sessions Court had considered the final report, statements of nine eyewitnesses and CCTV footage annexed to the charge sheet.

After viewing the footage in open court, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the deleted accused were present and participated in the occurrence; the Court consequently formed a prima facie view that they should be summoned.

The High Court held that the Sessions Court was entitled to disagree with the police conclusion on the basis of that existing record, without ordering further investigation.

The petitioners’ objections did not warrant interference at this stage; they could contest the prima facie view during trial or seek discharge.

It closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, leaving the petitioners to challenge the prima facie view during trial or through a discharge petition, if advised.