Summoning under Section 319 CrPC requires evidence significantly higher than a mere prima facie case.

The applicant, an IPS officer serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1993, was named in an FIR alleging assault and caste-based abuse against a police constable during an investigation.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a report under Section 169 of the CrPC stating no offence was made out against the applicant, and he was not charge-sheeted.

During the subsequent trial of ten other accused (Sessions Case No. 144/2001), the prosecution examined the complainant (PW-1) and the victim (PW-2). Before the cross-examination of PW-2 was completed, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to join the applicant as an accused.

The Sessions Court allowed this application on July 15, 2006, leading the applicant to file the present revision.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in invoking Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the applicant as an additional accused based on the evidence of PW-1 and the incomplete testimony of PW-2.

2. Whether the standard of "more than a prima facie case" required for summoning an additional accused was met in the present circumstances.

The court applied Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the court to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.

It relied on the Constitutional Bench decisions in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 91 and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 89, establishing that the power to summon is extraordinary and requires evidence "much stronger than a mere prima facie case".

Additional precedents cited included Juhru v. Karim (2023) 5 SCC 406 and Michael Machado v. CBI (2000) 3 SCC 262, which caution against the routine exercise of this power.

The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge invoked Section 319 primarily based on allegations of derogatory language and the Atrocities Act.

The court found that PW-1 was not an eyewitness and based his testimony on hearsay.

Regarding PW-2, the court noted that his testimony was incomplete as cross-examination had not occurred.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant had previously been exonerated under a Section 169 report and no fresh credible evidence of high weightage was produced, the "more than prima facie" threshold was not satisfied.

The High Court determined that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion by summoning the applicant at the threshold of the trial without evaluating if the evidence carried the requisite weightage to justify a trial against him.

The court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC was exercised improperly in the absence of credible evidence.

It clarified that the Sessions Judge remains at liberty to exercise this discretion at a later stage should the prosecution lead prima facie evidence suggesting the applicant's involvement.