Title: Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U. P. and Anr. involve a constitutional challenge to a specific provision or law in Uttar Pradesh, pertaining to an issue such as freedom of speech and expression, fundamental rights, or public order. 

Case name: Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480

 Bench: Dipankar Datta, Pankaj Mithal 

Relevant cases: ◦ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 ◦ Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2019) 9 SCC 302 

Dates: ◦ FIR registered on 15.05.2018 ◦ Charge-sheet filed on 16.07.2018 ◦ Summoning order passed on 16.10.2021 ◦ Appeal dismissed by High Court on 01.06.2022 ◦ Appeal allowed by Supreme Court on 02.06.2023 ◦

 ◦ Brief Facts and Procedural History: ◦ ◦ The appellant, an advocate, was summoned by the Special Court under the SC/ST Act, along with his brother Dharmendra, for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, based on the evidence of the complainant and his wife, who alleged that they were assaulted and abused by the appellant, his brother and an unknown person. 

◦ The appellant challenged the summoning order before the High Court, contending that he was falsely implicated due to a financial dispute between the complainant and his brother, and that he was not named in the FIR or the charge sheet.

 ◦ The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the summoning order was passed after due application of mind and that the appellant’s involvement in the crime could not be ruled out at this stage. 

◦ The appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, assailing the High Court’s order. 

• Issue: Whether the Special Court was justified in summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC for trial along with his brother?

 • Ratio: The Supreme Court held that the Special Court was not justified in summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC for trial along with his brother, for the following reasons:

 ◦ Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary power that empowers the court to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. 

◦ The power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only when there is strong and cogent evidence against such person and when it is necessary for a just decision of the case to try him along with the other accused. 

◦ The power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with caution, as it may cause serious prejudice to such person who may have no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to produce any defense evidence in his favor. 

◦ In the present case, the Special Court did not record any reasons for summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC, nor did it consider whether it was necessary for a just decision of the case to try him along with his brother.

 ◦ The Special Court also did not consider the fact that the appellant was not named in the FIR or the charge-sheet and that there was no other independent evidence against him apart from the testimony of the complainant and his wife, who had a motive to implicate him due to a prior dispute. 

◦ The Special Court also did not consider whether summoning the appellant at a belated stage would cause any prejudice to him or affect his right to a fair trial. • 

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order passed by the Special Court against the appellant. It observed that summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC was an abuse of process of law and a violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also directed that the trial against Dharmendra should be concluded expeditiously. 

Reference:- 1. live law.in 2. indiankanoon.org 3. indianemployees.com