PRASHANT BHAUSAHEB PATIL V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2025:BHC-AUG:27934:

DATE: 07/10/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

FACTS:

The petitioner, a teacher at Gurudatta Secondary School in Dhule, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Criminal Revision Application No. 28/2023. The Sessions Court had allowed a revision filed by the original informant (respondent No. 2) and directed that the petitioner be tried as an accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 115/2016. Earlier, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dhule, had rejected an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) filed by the prosecution seeking to add the petitioner as an accused, finding no sufficient material against him. The FIR in question was filed against multiple persons, including the petitioner, for offences under Sections 324, 447, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to an alleged assault. However, when the police filed the charge sheet, it was only against one accused, omitting the petitioner.

The prosecution later sought to add the petitioner as an accused, citing an eyewitness statement identifying him as one of the assailants. The JMFC, after reviewing the record, found no adequate evidence and dismissed the application. The informant then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which allowed it, holding that sufficient material existed to summon the petitioner for trial. The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, contending that the informant had no locus standi to file a revision under Section 397 CrPC and that he was not present at the scene, claiming an alibi as he was on duty at school. The informant and the State opposed the petition, arguing that the informant, as a victim, had a right to challenge such orders and that there was credible evidence indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the offence.

ISSUES:

The primary issues before the High Court were: (i) whether the informant had the legal right to file a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC against the JMFC’s order rejecting the application to add the petitioner as an accused, and (ii) whether the Sessions Court was justified in directing that the petitioner be tried based on the available evidence, despite his claim of alibi.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition and upheld the Sessions Court’s order allowing the revision. The Court held that the informant, being the victim, was entitled to file a revision application under Section 397 CrPC and to participate in the proceedings. It further held that the Sessions Court rightly found sufficient material to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 CrPC and that the ground of alibi could only be examined during trial, not at the pre-trial stage.

The Court reasoned that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023), the burden of proving an alibi lies upon the person who asserts it, as such facts are within his special knowledge. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that he was on duty at school during the time of the offence could not be considered at this preliminary stage and must be proved through evidence during trial. The Court also emphasized that the informant, as a victim, has an unqualified right to be heard at every stage of the criminal proceedings from investigation to revision or appeal—and cannot be compelled to wait until trial to assert such rights. Hence, the revision petition filed by the informant was maintainable under Section 397 CrPC.

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2025) 2 SCC 621, which clarified the principles governing Section 319 CrPC. The High Court reiterated that a person, even if named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted, can be summoned to face trial if sufficient evidence emerges during proceedings. The decision to summon a person under Section 319 must be based on evidence adduced before the court, not merely on the investigation record or charge sheet. In this case, the eyewitness testimony and the informant’s statement specifically implicating the petitioner constituted sufficient material for invoking Section 319. Additionally, the Court noted that the investigating officer had erred by filing a charge sheet without addressing the petitioner’s role or recording reasons for his exclusion under Section 169 CrPC. Such procedural omissions undermined the completeness of the investigation. Therefore, the Sessions Court’s order was found to be legally sound and consistent with established procedural law, warranting no interference by the High Court.

ANALYSIS:

The Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores the evolving recognition of victims’ participatory rights in criminal proceedings and reinforces the broader interpretation of Section 397 CrPC in light of victim-centric jurisprudence. By affirming the informant’s locus standi to file a revision petition, the Court aligned with the constitutional principle that access to justice should not be limited to the State alone in criminal matters. The judgment reaffirms that victims are legitimate stakeholders with an active role at every procedural stage, especially when the prosecuting agency’s omissions or errors might compromise the fairness of the process. The Court’s approach thus reflects a balance between the statutory powers of investigation and the victim’s right to seek redress, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice.

Further, the Court’s treatment of the petitioner’s alibi defence demonstrates judicial restraint and fidelity to procedural rigour. By holding that the claim of alibi must be established at trial rather than at the pre-trial stage, the Court reinforced the evidentiary principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proving such a defence rests upon the accused. The reliance on Omi @ Omkar Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh clarifies that Section 319 CrPC can be invoked even against persons initially omitted from the charge sheet, provided credible evidence surfaces during trial. This decision strengthens the judicial framework ensuring that culpable individuals are not shielded by investigative lapses, while also maintaining that such inclusion must be based on cogent material rather than mere suspicion. Overall, the judgment enhances procedural fairness by harmonizing the rights of victims, the responsibilities of investigators, and the safeguards accorded to the accused.