In Brief
The appellant was summoned to stand trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. alongside Dharmendra, based on depositions of the complainant and his wife alleging they had jointly assaulted and abused them with caste-based slurs. The appellant challenged this summoning order, contending that material contradictions between the witnesses' versions, the omission of his name from the FIR, delay in lodging the complaint, and the absence of public witnesses rendered the evidence unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the evidence sufficiently established the appellant's alleged involvement to warrant trial. Points about witness credibility, delay, and contradictions remain open for trial on merits and do not vitiate the summoning order at the pre-trial stage. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.