In Brief
A young woman was abducted and raped in May 2012 by three men—Yogesh, Rupa, and Nahar Singh (the appellant). In her statement to the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, she named all three. However, the police charge-sheet included only Yogesh and Rupa. The magistrate summoned all three for trial. The appellant challenged this, arguing he could only be summoned under Section 319 CrPC (during trial, not at cognizance). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must identify all real offenders from available materials—not just those named in the charge-sheet. Statements under Section 164 CrPC are valid materials for this purpose. The magistrate's duty is to investigate the offence, not limit proceedings to police recommendations.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.