CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.07.2026 Pale Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. K. Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. None for respondents No. 2 to 7. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Sandeep, Vijay, Sumit, Satpal, Parveen and Monu as additional accused had been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner/complainant alleging therein that he was in possession of a plot measuring 30' × 40' in the village, which he was using for tying cattle and storing cow dung. It is alleged that there was an existing dispute regarding possession of the said plot and the petitioner had already obtained an injunction order from the competent Civil Court restraining interference with his possession. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2016, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -2- Santosh, wife of Jitender, came to the disputed plot for dumping cow dung. When the petitioner's wife Savitri objected to the same in view of the subsisting injunction order, an altercation ensued between them. During the course of the quarrel, Sandeep and Vijay allegedly arrived at the spot, abused the complainant party by referring to their caste and started assaulting Savitri. Upon hearing the commotion, the petitioner reached the spot where he too was assaulted. Thereafter, Jitender, Sanjay, Sonu and several other persons, namely Sandeep, Vijay, Sumit, Satpal, Parveen and Monu reached at the spot armed with lathis, axe, kassi and jelly and inflicted injuries upon the petitioner, his wife and his nephew. It was further alleged that while leaving the spot, the assailants extended threats to kill the complainant party in case they again entered the disputed plot. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. 3. The police, after investigation, presented the challan only against Jitender, Santosh, Sanjay and Sonu, whereas Sandeep, Vijay, Sumit, Satpal, Parveen and Monu were found innocent and were not sent up for trial. During the course of trial, the complainant appeared as PW-1 and thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking summoning of the aforesaid persons as additional accused. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.08.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial Court had gravely erred in dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. despite there being cogent evidence on record disclosing the involvement of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -3- the proposed accused. It is argued that all the proposed accused were specifically named in the FIR and specific roles had been attributed to each of them in the occurrence. The complainant, while appearing as PW-1, reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and specifically deposed regarding the participation of the proposed accused in the assault. It is further argued that the police investigation was unfair inasmuch as the proposed accused were wrongly declared innocent despite the specific allegations levelled against them. Learned counsel submits that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised on the basis of evidence that emerges during trial and not on the opinion formed by the investigating agency. Therefore, once the testimony of PW-1 disclosed the active participation of the proposed accused, the learned trial Court ought to have summoned them to face trial. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 be set aside and the proposed accused be summoned to face trial along with the other accused. 5. There is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 7, despite having been served with notices. 6. Learned State counsel has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which is well reasoned. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 8. At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which read as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. – (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -4- being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses reheard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." 9. Having noted the abovementioned 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. 10. The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had arisen for detailed consideration in Hardeep Singh v. State MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -5- of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein the scope, procedure and the stage at which such power was to be exercised was considered and summarized. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and an extraordinary power. It has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. 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 material placed before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. It was also observed 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 strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been established 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 of Cr.P.C. 11. The legal position on the scope and ambit of powers of the Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has also been summarized by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and others, (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 321, wherein it was observed as under:- “(i) That while exercising the powers under section 319 CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -6- (ii) For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly. (iii) The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. (iv) To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. (v) Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. (vi) Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. (vii) The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. (viii) Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. (ix) The power under section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the process into motion. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -7- (x) The court can exercise the power under section 319 CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence. (xi) The word "evidence" in section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to documents. (xii) It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation. (xiii) If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). (xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under section 319 CrPC can be exercised. (xv) That power under section 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination. (xvi) Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses). MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -8- (xvii) While exercising the powers under section 319 CrPC the Court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.” 12. In view of the ratio of law as discussed above, it is amply clear that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised only where the evidence recorded before the Court is of such quality as to indicate, more than a mere prima facie case, the involvement of a person who has not been sent up for trial. At the same time, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence as if deciding the case finally. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh’s case and Manjeet Singh’s case (supra) are required to guide the exercise of such jurisdiction. 13. In the present case, the complainant has entered the witness box as PW-1 and has made a sworn statement before the trial Court. A perusal of his deposition shows that he has categorically attributed a specific overt act to Sandeep by stating that he inflicted a Kulhari blow on the head of the complainant. Likewise, the complainant has specifically deposed that Monu gave Lathi blows on his back. These are clear and specific allegations made on oath before the Court and constitute substantive evidence for the purpose of considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, was not justified in ignoring this direct evidence while declining to summon the aforesaid two persons. However, insofar as the remaining proposed accused, namely Vijay, Sumit, Satpal and Parveen, are concerned, this Court finds that no such specific attribution of injuries or overt acts has been made against them in the sworn testimony of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 3308 of 2018 (O&M) -9- PW-1 so as to satisfy the stringent test laid down for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Mere naming of a person in the FIR or making omnibus allegations, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence recorded before the Court, cannot be held sufficient for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 is liable to be modified to the aforesaid extent. The revision petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside insofar as it declines to summon Sandeep son of Bhim Singh and Monu son of Satbir, who are directed to be summoned as additional accused to face trial in accordance with law. The prayer for summoning the remaining proposed accused, namely Vijay, Sumit, Satpal and Parveen, is declined. As a sequence, abovenamed Sandeep and Monu are ordered to be summoned as additional accused to face trial in the aforementioned case. 14. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above are only for the purposes of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document