The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has set aside an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge that summoned additional accused persons under Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (equivalent to the old Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh held that once charges have been framed and the case is fixed for evidence, the Trial Court cannot invoke Section 213 BNSS to summon persons not named in the charge sheet. Instead, the Court must wait for evidence to be recorded and proceed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. (or equivalent BNSS provision) if justified.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Ganesh Prasad Garg and Bablu Mishra challenging the order dated May 24, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2025 (State of M.P. Vs. Rajju and others).
The complainant, Jitendra Mishra, had filed an application under Section 213 of the BNSS, which the Trial Court allowed. Consequently, the applicants were arrayed as accused persons, and processes were issued for their appearance, despite them not being charge-sheeted by the police.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel for the applicants argued that the police investigation had found no involvement of the applicants in the alleged incident, and they were not present at the place of the incident. It was submitted that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
The applicants contended that the Trial Court had already taken cognizance and framed charges against the original accused. The case was fixed for the evidence stage. Therefore, invoking Section 213 of the BNSS at this advanced stage was bad in law. The applicants alleged that they were being falsely implicated due to enmity regarding a Sarpanch election. Specifically, it was noted that the wife of applicant no. 2 is the elected Sarpanch, and applicant no. 2 belongs to the complainant’s family.
The counsel for the State and the respondent-complainant supported the impugned order, arguing that the Trial Court acted within its jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Singh examined whether the Sessions Court was justified in summoning additional accused under Section 213 BNSS after the trial had commenced.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Guddi Devi Vs. State of Raj. & anr. (2012), which held that once a matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, it has no power to summon an additional accused except at the stage of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. after evidence has been recorded.
The Court also relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Farman and two others Vs. State of U.P. (2019), which stated:
“It is well settled position of law that cognizance of an offence can only be taken once… In the present matter as the cognizance has already been taken by the learned Sessions Judge and charges were framed against the accused… it would not be proper for the trial court to take further cognizance of the case and to summon the three accused by the impugned order.”
Furthermore, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2025) 2 SCC 621]. The Apex Court held that while the Trial Court has jurisdiction to add persons not charge-sheeted, such a step should be taken based on evidence adduced before it, not merely on police papers, once the initial stage is passed.
Regarding the Trial Court’s reasoning, the High Court observed:
“The reasoning of the trial court is faulty and cannot be justified for the simple reason that when cognizance of the accused was taken by the learned trial court after committal and before framing charges if court was of the same view… then cognizance should have been taken against the two proposed revisioners earlier but that was not done.”
The Court noted that in the present case, charges were framed on January 28, 2025, and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. The application under Section 213 BNSS was filed subsequently on March 7, 2025.
Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated May 24, 2025.
Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh directed:
“…after recording evidence of the complainant and other eye witnesses during trial which includes the cross-examination also the trial court can proceed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. as per law.”
The Court clarified that the power to summon other persons as proposed accused can be exercised under Section 319 only after recording evidence if the initial opportunity at the stage of taking cognizance was not utilized.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ganesh Prasad Garg and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 2559 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Applicants: Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra
- Counsel for State: Ms. Seema Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer
- Counsel for Respondents: Shri Manoj Kushwaha
