Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) - Case Analysis

Why in the Spotlight? - Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on 3rd January, 2025 ruled that filing of a police closure report will not bar the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Introduction of Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) centres around the exercise of powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure to summon additional accused in a murder trial. The case arose from the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which upheld the order of Trial Court to summon the Petitioners despite their exoneration in the police closure report.

Download Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

The case at hand centres around exercise of powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the Petitioners for trial in a murder case. The following are the brief facts of the case of Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh -

Origin of the Petition

The present petition was filed against the judgment dated 23rd October, 2024 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. The Court rejected the revision application of the Petitioners. The High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court and summoned the Petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) to face trial for murder.

Registration of FIR

A First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Padav Police Station, Gwalior, for offences under Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 147 (rioting), Section 148 (armed rioting) and Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR named seven individuals including the Petitioners.

Investigation and Closure Report

The Investigating Officer during the investigation filed a closure report regarding the Petitioners and specified no sufficient evidence was found against them. However, a charge sheet was filed against the other accused.

Incident Description

According to Raghvendra Tomar (PW-3), the incident occurred on 20th February, 2018 when he and Abhishek Tomar were returning from the District Court after a hearing. They were ambushed by the accused near the LIC office at Tansen Nagar Road. Pankaj Sikarwar allegedly shot Abhishek in the head whereas Veeru Tomar fired a shot into the stomach of Abhishek. The other accused also fired at Abhishek. When Raman and Sanjay attempted to intervene they too were targeted. Abhishek succumbed to his injuries at Sahara Hospital.

Summoning Under Section 319 of CrPC

During the trial, Raghvendra Tomar (PW-3) identified some of the accused and attributed specific actions to the Petitioners. An application was filed under Section 319 of CrPC and sought to summon the Petitioners to face trial. The Trial Court allowed the application.

Decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

The Petitioners approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court and challenged the decision of the Trial Court. The Petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Application. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the decision of the Trial Court to summon the Petitioners.

Present Petition in the Supreme Court

The Petitioners aggrieved by the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court approached the Supreme Court and sought relief from the summoning order.

Issue addressed in Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Whether the Trial Court can summon an individual as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on evidence presented during the trial, despite the person being exonerated in the police closure report or not named in the charge sheet was addressed in the case of Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

Legal Provisions involved in Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 played a significant role. The following is the analysis of this provision-

Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence

Section 319 of the Code (Now Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) states that -

1. In the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
2. Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
3. Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-Section (1) then-

1. the proceedings in respect of such a person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard.
2. subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Judgment and Impact of Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

On 3rd January, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan examined the scope of Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and held that a police closure report does not bar a Trial Court from summoning additional accused if evidence presented during the trial implicates them. 

The Supreme Court in Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that the Trial Court has the authority to summon any individual not already facing trial if evidence presented during the proceedings establishes their involvement in the offence irrespective of whether they were named in the FIR or exonerated in the closure report.

The Court also ruled that Trial Court is not bound by the conclusions of the police investigation. The discretionary power under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code is triggered only by the evidence presented during the trial.

The Court in Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh ruled that individuals earlier named in the FIR but were not chargesheeted can be summoned if substantial evidence is presented against them during trial. The stage for filing a protest petition does not restrict the power of Trial Court under Section 319 CrPC.

Thus, the Supreme Court in Omi vs State of Maharashtra upheld decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court of summoning the Petitioners.

Conclusion

In Omi vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) the Supreme Court upheld order of Trial Court under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code to summon individuals as additional accused if sufficient evidence is presented during trial.