The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the power to add an accused under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised only when the evidence reveals strong and cogent involvement, not mere suspicion or belated allegations. This ruling reinforces the threshold for judicial intervention at trial stage and curbs procedural abuse by complainants seeking to expand liability after years of delay.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a physical altercation on 20 December 2014 between petitioner Shailesh Shrotriya and his neighbors Hasmukh Bhandari and Arpit Moonat. The petitioner alleged that during the assault, a third individual, Prakash Moonat, also entered his house, participated in the beating, and threatened him. Despite this, the FIR registered that same day named only Hasmukh and Arpit as accused. No mention of Prakash Moonat appeared in the initial complaint or in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 20 December 2014: FIR registered under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC against Hasmukh and Arpit.
- 31 December 2014: Statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC; none implicated Prakash Moonat.
- 30 January 2014: Final report submitted charging only Hasmukh and Arpit.
- 16 October 2023: Charges framed against the two named accused.
- 16 February 2023: Examination-in-chief of complainant recorded; for the first time, he alleged Prakash Moonat’s involvement.
- 7 June 2023: Judicial Magistrate First Class allowed application under Section 319 CrPC to implead Prakash Moonat as accused no. 3.
- 1 February 2024: First Additional Sessions Judge set aside the JMFC’s order, holding evidence insufficient.
- 2024: Petitioner filed Section 482 CrPC petition before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Judge’s order and restoration of the JMFC’s order impleading Prakash Moonat as an accused, arguing that the evidence in examination-in-chief and a written complaint (Exhibit P-6) were sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the evidence adduced during examination-in-chief - untested by cross-examination and contradicted by prior statements - constitutes strong and cogent evidence sufficient to invoke Section 319 CrPC for adding an accused not named in the FIR or charge sheet.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Sukhpal v. State of Punjab to argue that Section 319 CrPC permits addition of an accused based on evidence presented during trial, even if untested by cross-examination. He emphasized that the complainant’s oral testimony in examination-in-chief, corroborated by a written complaint dated 22 December 2014 (Exhibit P-6), established Prakash Moonat’s involvement. He contended that the Sessions Judge erred in disregarding this evidence and in applying an unduly restrictive standard.
For the Respondent/State
The State and respondent Prakash Moonat argued that the complainant’s initial statements under Section 161 CrPC, recorded within hours of the incident, were silent on Prakash’s involvement. The final report, filed after a thorough investigation, did not name him. The application under Section 319 CrPC was filed nine years after the incident, only after the complainant’s examination-in-chief. Counsel submitted that the written complaint (Exhibit P-6) was not verified, and the belated allegation was an attempt to manipulate the trial. They cited Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and Omi v. State of M.P. to argue that the standard under Section 319 CrPC requires evidence that is more than prima facie but short of conviction-level satisfaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the legal framework governing Section 319 CrPC, drawing extensively from the Constitution Bench rulings in Hardeep Singh and subsequent decisions in Jitendra Nath Mishra and Omi. It emphasized that the power under Section 319 is discretionary, extraordinary, and must be exercised sparingly.
"Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence."
The Court held that the complainant’s examination-in-chief, while containing new allegations against Prakash Moonat, stood in direct contradiction to his own prior statements under Section 161 CrPC and those of all other witnesses. The written complaint (Exhibit P-6), though dated 22 December 2014, was not verified by the trial court and lacked corroboration. The Court noted that the complainant, a lawyer by profession, had ample opportunity to raise the issue at the time of FIR registration, during investigation, or at the time of framing of charges, yet chose to remain silent until the trial stage.
The Sessions Judge’s conclusion that the evidence did not meet the strong and cogent evidence threshold was found to be legally sound. The Court reiterated that Section 319 CrPC cannot be invoked on the basis of suspicion, inconsistency, or belated allegations, even if they appear in examination-in-chief. The purpose of the provision is not to allow re-litigation of investigation failures or to permit complainants to expand the list of accused after years of delay.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge’s order setting aside the JMFC’s order to implead Prakash Moonat. The core holding is that Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence - more than prima facie but short of conviction-level satisfaction - to add an accused not named in the FIR or charge sheet, and such evidence must be consistent with prior statements and not the product of deliberate delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strong Evidence Must Be Consistent and Timely
- Practitioners must demonstrate that allegations under Section 319 CrPC are consistent with earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC and the FIR.
- Belated allegations, especially after years of silence, will be viewed with suspicion and likely rejected unless independently corroborated.
- A written complaint submitted after the FIR but before trial must be verified and supported by other evidence; standalone complaints are insufficient.
Examination-in-Chief Alone Is Not Sufficient
- Oral testimony in examination-in-chief, even if detailed, cannot be the sole basis for invoking Section 319 CrPC if it contradicts prior recorded statements.
- Courts will scrutinize the timing and motive behind such applications; delay is a critical factor in assessing abuse of process.
- The burden is on the applicant to show that the new accused’s involvement was concealed or unknown until trial, not merely overlooked.
Investigator’s Discretion Does Not Bind the Court, But Evidence Must Be Credible
- While the investigating officer’s opinion is not determinative, the absence of any investigation into the new accused’s role weakens the application.
- Courts must not rely on the charge sheet or case diary as evidence; only testimony and documents admitted as evidence are relevant.
- The triple test - consistency, cogency, and timing - must be satisfied before invoking Section 319 CrPC.
