The Apex Court in the case titled as INDERDEV PRASAD SINGH & ORS.vs STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 04.10.2019 has quashed the order by which family members of husband of the complainant were summoned as additional accused.

The facts briefly stated are that the appellants are the parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant/wife. The complainant/wife filed a complaint against her husband as well as the appellants under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on investigation, no material was found against the appellants and they were kept in column 12 of the FIR. No charges were framed against them and they were not chargesheeted. Five years after the trial, on an application being filed by the complainant/wife and without any new material on record, they have been summoned.

When they approached the High Court, it declined the request by observing "By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged the order dated 6th September, 2016 whereby petitioners have been summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in view of the specific allegations against them in the FIR. Petitioners were earlier summoned and a revision petition was filed by them. The said petition was allowed by the Sessions Judge and the summary order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, with the directions, to pass a speaking order. After the remand, the Metropolitan Magistrate vide a reasoned order dated 6th September, 2016 has summoned the petitioner as accused. Petitioners did not assail the said order before the Sessions Judge, instead, they have now filed this petition after about 10 months. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to entertain this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order".

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it observed and held "No doubt the Magistrate can summon persons not originally chargesheeted, but that can only be done when fresh material is brought on record. From the order it is clear that no fresh material was relied on. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and the Trial Court and quash the summoning order".