Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of UP and Another, 2025
The judgment clarifies the distinction between Sections 193 and 319 CrPC and reinforces procedural flexibility within the criminal justice system.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
5 August 2025
Judges
Justice JB Pardiwala ⦁ Justice R Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The Sessions Court summoned an additional accused under Section 193 CrPC at the committal stage based on evidence in the investigation report.
-
The petitioner challenged the summoning, arguing that the power to summon additional accused lies only under Section 319 CrPC after the trial begins.
-
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order to summon the additional accused.
-
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a Sessions Court can summon additional accused at the committal stage without fresh committal or trial proceedings under Section 319 CrPC.
Issues
-
Whether the Court of Sessions can summon additional accused at the committal stage under Section 193 CrPC?
-
Whether cognizance is taken of the “offence” or the “offender” at committal stage?
-
Whether the power to summon additional accused during trial under Section 319 CrPC is exclusive or the Sessions Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 193 CrPC at committal stage?
-
How to interpret Sections 193, 209, and 319 CrPC in relation to summoning accused?
Held
-
The Commitment under Sections 209 and 193 CrPC is of the “case” or “offence,” not merely the “accused.”
-
Once cognizance is taken, the Sessions Court can summon additional accused based on available evidence without requiring fresh committal.
-
Section 319(4)(b) CrPC deems a person added during trial as an accused, even if cognizance was earlier taken.
-
It is the Court’s duty to identify and summon all persons involved in the offence for a fair trial.
-
The Sessions Court has power under Section 193 CrPC to summon accused who may not have been charge-sheeted but are implicated in evidence.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized that cognizance is focused on the offence, not the individual accused.
-
Summoning additional accused at the committal stage prevents fragmented trials and promotes comprehensive justice.
-
The judgment clarifies the distinction between Sections 193 and 319 CrPC and reinforces procedural flexibility within the criminal justice system.
-
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana to affirm the Sessions Court’s broad power to summon accused persons.