In Brief
Periyasami and others were accused of intimidating a man regarding his wife's maintenance, with 20 additional accused proposed by the complainant. The Trial Court declined to add these persons as accused, but the High Court overturned this order, directing their summoning under Section 319 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that additional accused cannot be summoned without strong and cogent evidence—mere disclosure of names during witness examination is insufficient. The Court found the allegations vague and implausible, and restored the Trial Court's order, allowing the appeal and dismissing the application under Section 319.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.