The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal appeal filed by Mukesh Singh alias Salaj Singh, setting aside a trial court order that had summoned him to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court observed that the power to summon additional accused must be exercised sparingly and requires evidence much stronger than a mere probability of complicity.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an FIR lodged on September 6, 2021, at Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur. The informant alleged that the named accused persons assaulted his son, Mangal, with lathis, dandas, and a battle-axe with the intention to kill. The appellant, Mukesh Singh, was named in the FIR.
However, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) found evidence suggesting the appellant was not present at the scene. This was supported by statements from independent witnesses and Call Detail Records (CDR) indicating his presence in Maudaha at the relevant time. Consequently, the IO found no credible evidence against the appellant, exonerated him, and submitted a charge-sheet only against three co-accused persons.
During the trial, after the examination of three prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3), the Trial Court at Hamirpur allowed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on November 28, 2025, summoning the appellant to face trial alongside the other accused.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri Kamal Krishna, argued that the summoning order was illegal and passed in a “mechanical manner” without proper appreciation of evidence. He emphasized that the appellant had been cleared after a thorough investigation which established a plea of alibi. He contended that no fresh or incriminating evidence had emerged during the trial to justify the summoning, as the testimonies were mere reiterations of earlier statements.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 (the informant) opposed the appeal, stating that three prosecution witnesses had specifically named the appellant and detailed his involvement in the alleged “marpeet.” He argued that the testimony of injured witnesses carries significant evidentiary value and that the Trial Court’s order was well-reasoned.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Madan Pal Singh, presiding over the case, noted that the appellant was not charge-sheeted initially because the investigation corroborated his absence from the crime scene. The Court observed:
“The statements of prosecution witnesses, at best, amount to mere reiteration of the allegations made in the FIR and do not satisfy the higher degree of satisfaction as required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”
The Court relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, quoting:
“Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant… Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.”
The High Court further cited Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2017) 7 SCC 706, noting that trial courts must look into the materials collected during the investigation (such as CDR and independent witness statements) when forming a prima facie opinion under Section 319, especially when those materials suggest the accused was elsewhere.
The Court found that the Trial Court had failed to record satisfaction that the evidence against the appellant was “much stronger than mere probability of complicity” or that it would likely lead to a conviction if unrebutted.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the impugned order dated November 28, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur, suffered from “illegality and perversity” and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the summoning order.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Mukesh Singh @ Salaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date: April 6, 2026
