Non-charge-sheeted persons named in FIR may be summoned under Section 319 CrPC if trial evidence surfaces involvement.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, which impleaded them as accused persons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

The case originated from an FIR alleging that on 11.01.2018, the accused intentionally rammed a motorcycle with a Bolero vehicle and subsequently assaulted the riders with iron rods, leading to two deaths.

Although the petitioners were named in the FIR with specific overt acts, the Investigating Officer did not charge-sheet them.

During the trial, PW-1 and CW-1 provided testimony specifically implicating the petitioners in the commission of the offence.

The petitioners argued they should not be summoned because they were excluded from the final police report and because a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had already awarded compensation for the incident as an accident.

1. Whether the Trial Court can exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon persons as accused when those persons were named in the FIR but not sent up for trial by the investigating agency

2. Whether the award of compensation by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) precludes criminal prosecution for the same incident

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and noted its counterparts in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which empowers a court to proceed against any person appearing to be guilty of an offence based on evidence recorded during trial.

Hardei v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the police's failure to charge-sheet a suspect does not denude the Trial Court’s power to summon them based on trial evidence.

Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, establishing that Section 319 can be invoked based on examination-in-chief alone and that even those named in the FIR but omitted from the charge-sheet can be summoned if evidence surfaces.

Rajjan Lal @ Rajanu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that Section 319 requires the court's satisfaction based on evidence rather than mere allegations.

The Court reasoned that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. exists specifically to ensure that real perpetrators do not escape justice due to omissions in the police report.

In this case, the Trial Court did not act solely on the FIR but on the substantive testimony of PW-1 and CW-1, who attributed specific roles to the petitioners.

The High Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the MACT award, clarifying that the standards for civil compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are "entirely distinct" from criminal liability for cognizable offences.

The Court emphasized that at the Section 319 stage, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required; the court only needs to ascertain if the evidence discloses a prima facie case for trial.

Since the testimonies directly linked the petitioners to the intentional assault and deaths, the Trial Court’s clinical satisfaction was deemed legally sound.

It answered that the exclusion of a names from a charge-sheet does not prevent a court from summoning them if trial evidence (PW-1 and CW-1) implicates them.

The Court further held that MACT proceedings do not negate criminal liability.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate impleading the petitioners was upheld.