Allahabad HC Upholds Refusal to Add Daughter-in-Law’s Brother and Two Known Men, After FIR Called Men Unknown and Probe Placed Brother at School

The revisionist challenged the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra’s order dated 8 September 2025 rejecting his application under Section 319 CrPC to summon Jitendra, Mukesh and Satyendra as additional accused in a case under Sections 323 and 325 IPC

The FIR named Jitendra and referred to five or six unknown persons, but the investigating officer charge-sheeted only other named accused; the revisionist later identified Mukesh and Satyendra among the persons allegedly present

After an earlier rejection and remand, the Magistrate allowed the application as to Mukesh and Satyendra. A further revision resulted in another remand, after which the Magistrate again rejected the application

Section 319 CrPC empowers a court to proceed against a person who appears, from evidence before it, to have committed an offence for which that person could be tried with the accused.

The power is discretionary and extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly: as stated in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, it requires “strong and cogent evidence” and must not be used casually or merely because the court considers that another person may also be guilty

The underlying prosecution concerned offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC

The High Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with the Magistrate’s assessment.

Although the revisionist asserted that Mukesh and Satyendra were present and that the injured person had sustained eight injuries, the court considered that the FIR did not name them even though the revisionist admitted knowing them, and that no specific overt act amounting to an offence was attributed to them

It also upheld the assessment that the later unavailability of the school attendance register did not establish that the investigating officer lacked the attendance information when investigating promptly after the incident; Jitendra’s reported presence in Etah therefore did not provide a basis to doubt the investigation’s finding

In the context of the pending matrimonial dispute and the evidence concerning the proposed accused, the court accepted the Magistrate’s conclusion that the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC had not been met

The rejection of the Section 319 CrPC application was therefore left undisturbed