MOHD. SHAFI versus MOHD. RAFIQ & ANR.

MOHD. SHAFI versus MOHD. RAFIQ & ANR.

The trial judge is required to exercise judicial discretion and must be satisfied, generally upon completion of cross-examination, that there is a possibility the person summoned would be convicted before invoking Section 319 CrPC. The High Court erred in interfering at the instance of a mere witness and at such a stage where the State was not aggrieved, and before requisite satisfaction was reached by the trial court.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Shafi; Respondent No.1: Mohd. Rafiq; Respondent No.2: State
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order in Criminal Misc. Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summoning of Accused, Section 319 Cr PC, Exercise of Discretion by Court, Powers Under Section 482 Cr PC
Criminal Law Summoning of Accused Section 319 Cr PC Exercise of Discretion by Court Powers Under Section 482 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Shafi

Appellant

Mohd. Rafiq

Respondent No.1

State

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order in Criminal Misc. Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court is required to arrive at satisfaction before summoning a person under Section 319 CrPC.
  2. 2 Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC. could be entertained at the instance of a witness at the stated stage.
  3. 3 At what stage can the satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC be reached by the trial court?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge is required to exercise judicial discretion and must be satisfied, generally upon completion of cross-examination, that there is a possibility the person summoned would be convicted before invoking Section 319 CrPC. The High Court erred in interfering at the instance of a mere witness and at such a stage where the State was not aggrieved, and before requisite satisfaction was reached by the trial court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside.