The Supreme Court in the case Naveen vs State of Haryana observed and has reiterated that the power of a court under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar observed and has stated that the crucial test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but of the short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence and would lead to conviction if goes unrebutted.
In the present case, the trial Judge rejected the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 CrPC for summoning a person to face trial in a rape case. In her application, it was submitted by the complainant that she had named the said person as accused in her initial version but the police did not challan them in collusion with them. Latterly, the High Court allowed his application and has set aside this order.
In an appeal, the bench referred to the judgement in the case Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein the court observed that the Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in such cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence and would lead to conviction if goes unrebutted.
Accordingly, the court while referring to the evidence on record, it was stated by bench that the same, if remains unrebutted, will not be sufficient to lead the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned. Therefore, the order of High Court was set aside and allowed the application.
