Summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires strong evidence rather than vague or non-specific allegations.

The complainant’s daughter, Sifa, married Taufiq on 12.05.2022.

The complainant alleged that Sifa was harassed for dowry (Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle) by her husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law (Chandani), and uncle-in-law (Kallu).

On 26.01.2023, Sifa died by hanging in her matrimonial home.

Following an investigation into Case Crime No. 15 of 2023 (under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act), the police filed a charge-sheet against the husband and parents-in-law but declared Kallu and Chandani innocent.

During the trial, after the examination of three prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3), the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Kallu and Chandani as additional accused.

The trial court dismissed the application on 06.11.2025, leading to the present revision petition.

1. Whether the evidence recorded during the trial was sufficient to satisfy the "extraordinary" threshold required to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to summon Kallu and Chandani was legally sound and free from jurisdictional error.

The Court applied Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which empowers the trial court to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty of an offense who are not already accused.

The Court reiterated the established legal principle that this power is "extraordinary in nature" and must be exercised sparingly, only in instances where "strong evidence" (more than a mere prima facie case) emerges during the trial indicating the involvement of the person sought to be summoned.

The Court found that the allegations against Chandani and Kallu in the FIR were vague and lacked specific instances of maltreatment.

It noted that Kallu, a cousin of the father-in-law, did not reside in the matrimonial home, and his primary role in the FIR was merely informing the complainant of the death.

Upon reviewing the trial depositions, the Court observed material inconsistencies; PW-1’s testimony regarding a meeting with his daughter on 15.01.2023 contradicted his earlier stance in the FIR that he was prevented from seeing her.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegations were largely based on hearsay (disclosures allegedly made by the deceased to her mother), yet the mother was not examined as a witness.

The Court concluded that the evidence provided by PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 did not rise to the level of "strong evidence" required by law to override the police's initial finding of innocence during the investigation.

It concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice or legal error warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order dated 06.11.2025.