Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narveer vs Rajpal And Others on 11 December, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -1-
2024:PHHC:172461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-283-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.12.2024
NARVEER ....PETITIONER
Versus
RAJPAL AND ORS. ....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the private respondents.
******
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated
02.01.2019, Annexure P-1, whereby the application moved by the injured
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning 1.Rajpal son of Srichand; 2.Ombir
son of Desh Raj; 3.Mukesh son of Satte @ Satya Parkash, all residents of
village Prithla, Tehsil and District Palwal, to face trial as additional accused,
has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (for
short – ‘trial Court’).
2. Relief sought:
Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated
02.01.2019, Annexure P-1, holding the same to be illegal, unjust and
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -2-erroneous and application may kindly be allowed.
3. Contentions:
On behalf the petitioner:
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is an injured in FIR No.345 dated 03.05.2017, under Sections 148,
149, 323, 324, 506 IPC (offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25
of the Arms Act added later on) which was registered on the basis of
complaint made by Manjeet Singh son of Partap Singh r/o Pirthala at Police
Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal on the allegations that on 01.05.2017
complainant was going towards his house and when he had reached in front
of the house of Jaipal and saw that his cousin brother Narveer son of Bachhu
Singh resident of Prithala was being beaten up brutally by Karamveer son of
Deshraj, Chaman Lal, Manjeet son of Dulli and Ombir son of Desraj,
besides two other boys. Manjeet was having knife, Karamveer was having
Danda, latter caused blows on the head of Narveer, other assaulted him by
lathi, dandas and sariya. On alarm being raised by complainant, Bir Singh
and Bachhu Singh came immediately on the spot, assailants alongwith their
respective weapons fled away from the spot. Though, respondents No.1 to 3
are specifically named in the FIR by the complainant as accused for
inflicting injuries on the person of Narveer (the present petitioner), yet the
police after investigation of the matter, filed final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. only against Manjeet, Chaman and Karamveer and exonerated Rajpal
and Ombir and declared Mukesh as innocent. Thereafter, application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon respondents No.1 to 3 as additional
accused to face trial in the case. However, the same has been dismissed by
the learned trial Court vide order dated 02.01.2019 rather than allowing the
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -3-application, in view of the allegations in FIR and deposition of PW-8 before
the learned trial Court.
On behalf of Respondent – State :
Learned State counsel has submitted that there is no fault in the
investigation conducted by the investigating agency because as per challan,
Annexure P-9, during investigation, respondents No.1 to 3 were not found
involved in the present case and they were got discharged through the Court,
as per rules. Accordingly, challan was presented against Manjit s/o Duli
Chand and Chaman s/o Rajpal in the case and they are facing trial. Hence,
the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both the sides and case file perused.
5. Analysis:
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in “Hardeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others“, (2014) 3 SCC 92, while illuminating
the scope of Section 319 Cr.PC, laid down that:-
“57. Thus, the application of the provisions of Section
319 CrPC, at the stage of inquiry is to be understood in
its correct perspective. The power under Section 319
CrPC can be exercised only on the basis of the evidence
adduced before the court during a trial. So far as its
application during the course of inquiry is concerned, it
remains limited as referred to herein above, adding a
person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned
in Column 2 of the charge-sheet or any other person who
might be an accomplice.”
XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
“105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary
and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -4-
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is
of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty
of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should be exercised and
not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is
to be established from the evidence led before the court,
not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination,
it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability
of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one
which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the
time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to
conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court
should refrain from exercising power under Section 319
CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if
“it appears from the evidence that any person not being
the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the
words “for which such person could be tried together
with the accused”. The words used are not “for which
such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no
scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to
form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.”
In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Supreme Court eloquently held
that the word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood
and thus materials which have come before the Court, in course of enquiry,
can be used for (i) corroboration of evidence recorded by Court after
commencement of trial; (ii) for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;
and (iii) also to add an accused whose name is shown in column no.2 of the
chargesheet.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -5-
In “Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab“, (2023) 1 SCC
289, the Supreme Court succinctly explained the powers bestowed on the
Court under Section 319 CrPC and ruled that:-
“15. At the outset, having noted the provision, it is amply
clear that the power bestowed on the Court is to the
effect that in the course of an inquiry into, or trial of an
offence, based on the evidence tendered before the Court,
if it appears to the Court that such evidence points to any
person other than the accused who are being tried before
the Court to have committed any offence and such
accused has been excluded in the charge sheet or in the
process of trial till such time could still be summoned and
tried together with the accused for the offence which
appears to have been committed by such persons
summoned as additional accused.”
The Constitution Bench refreshed the guidelines which, the
competent court, must follow while exercising powers under Section 319
CrPC and further ruled that:-
(i) if the competent court finds evidence or if application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement
of any other person in committing the offence based on
evidence “recorded at any stage in the trial” before
passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall
pause the trial at that stage and the Court shall proceed
to decide the fate of the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C.;
(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be
passed before proceeding further with the trial in the
main case and depending upon the stage at which the
order is passed, the Trial Court shall apply its mind to
the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -6-
tried along with other accused or separately; and (iii) if
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not invoked or
exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there
is a split-up case, such power can be invoked or
exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing
to the involvement of the additional accused to be
summoned in the spilt-up (bifurcated trial).
After analyzing the dicta of the Constitution Benches in
Hardeep Singh (supra) and Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra), the Supreme
Court in Juhru v. Karim, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 171, unequivocally held
that:-
“17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the
cited decisions that power of summoning under Section
319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the
existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non
to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add
that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power
to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums
referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that
ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very
threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial
court must evaluate the evidence against the persons
sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such
material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and
value as has been testified against those who are already
facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be
invoked.”
It is for the trial court to evaluate the evidence against the
persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material,
more or less, carry the same weight and value, as has been testified against
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -7-
those already facing trial and in the absence of any credible evidence, the
power under Section 319 CrPC ought not be invoked.
The Constitution Benches in Hardeep Singh (supra) and
Sukhpal Singh Khaira (supra) have cautioned that power under Section 319
CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised
sparingly and only, in those cases, where the circumstances of the case so
warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which
is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge,
but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction. It is imperative to add here that with a view to
prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums
referred to above. The procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the
summoning of a person, at the very threshold of the trial, may be
discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the
persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material,
more or less, carry the same weight and value, as has been testified against
those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence,
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked.
Thus, this Court held that though only a prima facie case is to
be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested
on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one
which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172472
CRR-283-2019 -8-
Now, coming to the facts of the present case, although witnesses
and the injured, Narbir, have named all individuals involved in causing
injuries, no specific injuries have been attributed to the persons who are
sought to be summoned. Their alleged roles contradict the statements of both
witnesses and the injured.
Given the quality of evidence presented by the prosecution
regarding the accused sought to be summoned, it is uncertain whether it
would secure a conviction. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to subject
these individuals to trial under Section 319 of the CrPC.
6. Conclusion:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of
the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner to summon Rajpal, Ombir and Mukesh
stands dismissed, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal. Hence, the
impugned order dated 02.01.2019 is upheld and the present petition stands
dismissed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
11.12.2024
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 03-01-2025 23:28:19 :::