In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of summoning an accused based on a prima facie case established from the allegations in the complaint and the preliminary evidence presented by the complainant.
The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, rebuffed the decisions of lower courts that had annulled the summoning orders. The justices criticized the lower courts for conducting what they termed a “mini-trial,” erroneously delving into the merits of the case as if determining a verdict of guilt or innocence. They emphasized that, at the summoning stage, a prima facie case suffices to warrant the issuance of summons.
The case in question involved allegations that the respondent had deceived the appellant by presenting a counterfeit divorce decree from her previous marriage, thus leading him to believe she was eligible for remarriage.
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of considering all relevant facts, including the production of forged documents and their presentation to the appellant. Such actions, the Court ruled, establish a prima facie case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivering the judgment, criticized the Sessions Court for prematurely assessing the evidence as if reaching a final verdict. He emphasized that the summoning stage is not tantamount to a trial, and a prima facie case suffices to initiate proceedings against the accused.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the High Court and Sessions Court, and reinstating the summoning orders issued by the Magistrate.
The ruling marks a significant departure from previous practices and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms at each stage of legal proceedings.
