CRM-M-23961- 133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Baljit Kaur and Another State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 90 dated 04.05.2009 was registered under Sections 324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Abohar. During investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and were kept in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of trial, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2011 allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitio revisional Court vide order dated 08.02.2012. -2012 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Baljit Kaur and Another VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 90 dated 04.05.2009 was registered under Sections 324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Abohar. During investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and were kept in Column No. 2 report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of trial, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2011 allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioners as additional accused. The said order was upheld by the revisional Court vide order dated 08.02.2012. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23961-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioners have been summoned as Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 90 dated 04.05.2009 was registered under Sections 324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Abohar. During investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and were kept in Column No. 2 report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of trial, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2011 allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and ners as additional accused. The said order was upheld by the The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of passed by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioners have been summoned as Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 90 dated 04.05.2009 was registered under Sections 324/323/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Abohar. During investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and were kept in Column No. 2 report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of trial, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2011 allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and ners as additional accused. The said order was upheld by the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.19 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23961- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that only a minor role of causing simple injuries by way of stick blow has been attributed to petitioners and no grievous injury has been alleged against them. It is further contended that the main accused, against whom the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, once the main accused have been acquitted and the prosecution has failed to establish its case, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners, who were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on a weaker footing, would amount to abuse of the process of law. According aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners were summoned on the basis of evidence which came on record during trial and the order passed by the trial Court does not 5. It is, however, not disputed that the main accused in the present case have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2022 with the categorical observation that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which is to b and only when strong and cogent evidence is available on record indicating the involvement of such person. In the present case, the petitioners were attributed only a minor role of causing simple injuries. The main accused, against wh primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the trial Court on merits. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the present -2012 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that only a minor role of causing simple injuries by way of stick blow has been attributed to petitioners and no grievous injury has been alleged against them. It is further contended that the main accused, against whom the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, once the d have been acquitted and the prosecution has failed to establish its case, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners, who were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on a weaker footing, would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners were summoned on the basis of evidence which came on record during trial and the order passed by the trial Court does not It is, however, not disputed that the main accused in the present case have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2022 with the categorical observation that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which is to b and only when strong and cogent evidence is available on record indicating the involvement of such person. In the present case, the petitioners were attributed only a minor role of causing simple injuries. The main accused, against wh primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the trial Court on merits. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the present -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that only a minor role of causing simple injuries by way of stick blow has been attributed to petitioners and no grievous injury has been alleged against them. It is further contended that the main accused, against whom the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, once the d have been acquitted and the prosecution has failed to establish its case, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners, who were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on a weaker footing, would amount to abuse ly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners were summoned on the basis of evidence which came on record during trial and the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. It is, however, not disputed that the main accused in the present case have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2022 with the categorical observation that the prosecution has failed to prove its case Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is available on record indicating the involvement of such person. In the present case, the petitioners were attributed only a minor role of causing simple injuries. The main accused, against whom the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the trial Court on merits. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the present Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that only a minor role of causing simple injuries by way of stick blow has been attributed to the petitioners and no grievous injury has been alleged against them. It is further contended that the main accused, against whom the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, once the d have been acquitted and the prosecution has failed to establish its case, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners, who were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on a weaker footing, would amount to abuse ly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioners were summoned on the basis of evidence which came on record during It is, however, not disputed that the main accused in the present case have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 07.10.2022 its case Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the summoning of an accused under e exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is available on record indicating the involvement of such person. In the present case, the petitioners were attributed om the primary allegations were levelled, have already been acquitted by the trial Court on merits. In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the present TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.19 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23961- petitioners would not be justified and would amount to misuse of the process of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the revisional Court, are hereby set aside. 8. However, nothing stated expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 19, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2012 (O&M) petitioners would not be justified and would amount to misuse of the process of the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the revisional Court, are hereby set aside. However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- petitioners would not be justified and would amount to misuse of the process of the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the revisional Court, are hereby set aside. hereinabove shall be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No petitioners would not be justified and would amount to misuse of the process of the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the order dated hereinabove shall be construed as an All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.19 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document