In Brief
Landlords and a court bailiff were sought to be summoned under Section 319 CrPC to face trial for alleged damage to property and theft during eviction proceedings. The High Court allowed the summoning based on the accused being named in the FIR and statements recorded during investigation. The Supreme Court held that summoning requires 'strong and cogent evidence' surfaced during actual trial, not investigative materials alone. Since the appellants were absent at the site and trial witnesses attributed no conspiracy to them, and the bailiff had no direct evidence linking him to the alleged offences beyond a finding of procedural dereliction, the Court set aside the High Court order and restored the trial court's dismissal of the summoning application.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.