Can accused joined under 319 of CrPC apply for discharge?

Reasoning Behind the Restriction

The courts have provided several key reasons for this restriction:

Higher Standard of Proof: The exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC requires a higher standard of proof compared to Section 227 CrPC. When a court summons an additional accused under Section 319, it does so based on evidence that appears to show the person has committed an offense.

Prevention of Contradictory Outcomes: Allowing discharge under Section 227 would render the exercise under Section 319 “totally infructuous and futile” since the same court would first summon an accused based on a stricter standard of proof, only to later discharge them based on a lesser standard of proof.

Legislative Intent: The purpose of Section 319 CrPC would be defeated if accused persons summoned under this provision could simply seek discharge under Section 227, as this would undermine the court’s power to ensure that all guilty parties are tried together.

Available Remedies

While an accused summoned under Section 319 cannot seek discharge under Section 227, they are not without legal remedies. The courts have clarified that such accused persons are “entitled to invoke remedy under law against an illegal or improper exercise of the power under Section 319”. This means they can challenge the summoning order itself if it was based on insufficient evidence or was otherwise improper.

Current Legal Status

Although the Supreme Court agreed to examine this issue in 2022, the established precedent from Jogendra Yadav continues to be followed by courts across India. The Allahabad High Court as recently as 2024 reaffirmed that “accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC are entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC but that cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”.