LI Network
Published on: February 9, 2024 at 11:58 IST
The Allahabad High Court has sent a case back to the trial court, highlighting the absence of the trial Court’s subjective satisfaction in summoning a person under Section 319 of the CrPC.
The High Court emphasized that failing to specify the sections under which the person would be tried hinders their ability to mount a defense, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, presiding over a Single Bench, observed, “The learned trial court while passing the impugned order…has not indicated its subjective satisfaction as to why the petitioner should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and under which sections the trial of the petitioner would be required.”
The petitioner contended that Section 319 Cr.P.C. holds significant gravity and should be sparingly exercised, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
The Supreme Court had emphasized that when summoning a person without an lodged FIR or filed charge-sheet, the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must specify the reason for summoning.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the trial court’s impugned order due to its lack of reasoning and subjective satisfaction.
The case has been remanded to the trial court with instructions to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law. The High Court granted the petition, allowing for a reevaluation of the matter with expedition if the trial court chooses to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Naseem v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (2024:AHC-LKO:11132)