CRM-M-35862 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (126) Ravinder Singh and Anr. State of Haryana and Anr. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the order dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P Assandh, District Karnal, whereby the petitioners were summoned Section 319 Cr.P.C. registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. 2. already been recorded in the order dated 29.08.2019 the petitioners has further argued that the learned trial Court fell into error -1- 35862-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ravinder Singh and Anr. Versus State of Haryana and Anr. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Ms. Garima Thappa, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Har Assisted by ASI Sunder Singh. Mr. Atul Prataap, Advocate and Mr. Bijender Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2, ****** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the order dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Assandh, District Karnal, whereby the petitioners were summoned Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in FIR No. registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have already been recorded in the order dated 29.08.2019 the petitioners has further argued that the learned trial Court fell into error IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35862-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 ……Petitioners ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Ms. Garima Thappa, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana Assisted by ASI Sunder Singh. Mr. Atul Prataap, Advocate and Mr. Bijender Singh, Advocate The present petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the order dated 15.02.2019 6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Assandh, District Karnal, whereby the petitioners were summoned under to face trial in FIR No. 623 dated 02.10.2017, registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have already been recorded in the order dated 29.08.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the learned trial Court fell into error 23.07.2026 ……Petitioners ……Respondents Mr. Atul Prataap, Advocate and Mr. Bijender Singh, Advocate The present petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of 7) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the order dated 15.02.2019 6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, under 623 dated 02.10.2017, registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have . Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the learned trial Court fell into error MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35862 in summoning the petitioners, as there was no them, much less any evidence corroborated by the medical record of the complainant. the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172 v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400 3. vehemently argued that the contents of the FIR constitute only the first version of the incident and that it is the testimony of the complainant before the Court which deserves due consideration. It is complainant specifically nominated the petitioners as the persons who committed the offence and attributed specific roles to each of them. It is further argued that such clarification cannot be construed as an improvement in the prosecu this Court regarding the existence of any medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's testimony, learned counsel for the complainant was unable to point out any such material on record. 4. 5. Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172, -2- 35862-2019 (O&M) in summoning the petitioners, as there was no them, much less any evidence corroborated by the medical record of the ant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172 v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400 Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the contents of the FIR constitute only the first version of the incident and that it is the testimony of the complainant before the Court which deserves due consideration. It is complainant specifically nominated the petitioners as the persons who committed the offence and attributed specific roles to each of them. It is further argued that such clarification cannot be construed as an improvement in the prosecution case. However, upon a specific query by this Court regarding the existence of any medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's testimony, learned counsel for the complainant was unable to point out any such material on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172, "The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the t but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C." in summoning the petitioners, as there was no prima facie evidence against them, much less any evidence corroborated by the medical record of the Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Rathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172 and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400. , learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the contents of the FIR constitute only the first version of the incident and that it is the testimony of the complainant before the Court which deserves due consideration. It is submitted that the complainant specifically nominated the petitioners as the persons who committed the offence and attributed specific roles to each of them. It is further argued that such clarification cannot be construed as an tion case. However, upon a specific query by this Court regarding the existence of any medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's testimony, learned counsel for the complainant was unable to point out any such material on record. counsel for the parties at length. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Rathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172, held as under: "The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C." evidence against them, much less any evidence corroborated by the medical record of the Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Vikas Rathi v. State of Hardeep Singh , learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the contents of the FIR constitute only the first version of the incident and that it is the testimony of the complainant before submitted that the complainant specifically nominated the petitioners as the persons who committed the offence and attributed specific roles to each of them. It is further argued that such clarification cannot be construed as an tion case. However, upon a specific query by this Court regarding the existence of any medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's testimony, learned counsel for the complainant was Vikas Rathi v. State of Uttar "The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a ime of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35862 in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400 that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only where the evidence against the proposed accused is cogent than the mere probability of his involvement in the commission of the offence. 6. discretionary and extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the evidence satisfies the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. on record does not satisfy the threshold required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioners testimony recorded and absence of any cogent impugned orders cannot be sustained. allowed. The orders dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P (Annexure P 8. conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law. 9. July 23, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -3- 35862-2019 (O&M) Further, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400 that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only where the evidence against the proposed accused is cogent than the mere probability of his involvement in the commission of It is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly n those cases where the evidence satisfies the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, this Court finds that the evidence brought on record does not satisfy the threshold required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any corroborative medical evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioners testimony recorded and absence of any cogent impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present petit allowed. The orders dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P (Annexure P-6) are hereby set aside. The learned trial Court shall make a sincere endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. July 23, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No he Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only where the evidence against the proposed accused is stronger and more cogent than the mere probability of his involvement in the commission of It is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly n those cases where the evidence satisfies the test laid down by In the present case, this Court finds that the evidence brought on record does not satisfy the threshold required for invoking the powers .C. In the absence of any corroborative medical evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioners made in the testimony recorded and absence of any cogent prima facie proof, the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) and 15.02.2019 The learned trial Court shall make a sincere endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law. application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE he Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked stronger and more cogent than the mere probability of his involvement in the commission of It is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly n those cases where the evidence satisfies the test laid down by In the present case, this Court finds that the evidence brought on record does not satisfy the threshold required for invoking the powers .C. In the absence of any corroborative medical made in the the ion is 7) and 15.02.2019 The learned trial Court shall make a sincere endeavour to MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document