CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-534-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Uploaded on: 27.07.2026 DEVENDRI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Ashit Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 7. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonipat whereby the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon respondent Nos.5 to 7 as additional accused has been dismissed in FIR No.307 dated 12.07.2020 registered under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC at Kharkhoda, Sonipat. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.307 dated 12.07.2020 under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Kharkhoda, Sonipat came to be registered at the instance of Devendri W/o late Rajender and the same reads as under:- JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -2- To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Khakoda, Sonipat. I Devendri W/o Late Rajender, caste Jat, is the resident of Village Thana Kalan. I have two son; Satish is the name of elder one & Manoj is the name of younger one who was unmarried. Satish alongwith his wife & children lived with me. Satish Kumar works in the office of DTC & used to come daily. On dated 05.07.2020 at about 10 AM; Anurag S/o Anil came to our house & told my younger son Manoj Kumar that his father is calling him. Who live infront of our house. I alongwith my daughter-in-law Reena W/o Satish Kumar came outside their house & saw a red colour car outside our house. Monu S/o Prem (who lives nearby) was driving the car & Anil was sitting on front conductor seat of the car. Rinku S/o Hawa Singh was sitting on rear seat. They all informed that they were going on tour for two-three days. On 07.07.2020 in the evening I saw Anil in front of our house & I inquired from him about my son but he did not gave satisfactory answer. I shared this information with my son Satish. Satish visited the house of Anil & upon inquiry Anil disclosed that they all were together & would return in 1 or 2 days. Later in the evening an information is received that one dead body was found in the village water house. I & my son got anxious. Satish alongwith one person visited village water house. He got information that police has taken dead body. We got more anxious. My son Satish visited PGI visited PGI, Khanpur but was not allowed to saw the dead body due to pandemic. On next day he visited Police Station & in photographs he identified dead body of Manoj. On 08.07.2020 post-mortum was conducted. Thereafter we received dead body & perform last rites. Thereafter we visited the house of Rinku, Monu & Anil to inquire the matter & found that all three run away from their houses & family members did not disclose their whereabouts. Anil father JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -3- Sukhbir has full information about the murder of my son Manoj. Despite that he mislead us. Anil is criminal mind person & a previous convict. I have full believe that Anil, Monu, Rinku & other persons committed murder after hatching criminal conspiracy. Your are requested to take strict action. Sd/- Devendri.” 3. During the course of investigation, the statements of Devendra @ Ghisu S/o Raj Singh, Jitendra @ Jite S/o Mansarovar and Shillu @ Shille S/o Dharm were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexures P-5 to P-7) as per which only Anil alias Baba S/o Sukhbir, Rinku S/o Hawa Singh and Ankit @ Chamu S/o Jaswant (respondent Nos.2 to 4) were present with deceased Manoj. 4. Based on the aforesaid statements and the investigation conducted by the police, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against Anil alias Baba S/o Sukhbir, Rinku S/o Hawa Singh and Ankit @ Chamu S/o Jaswant (respondent Nos.2 to 4). However, Anurag S/o Anil, Monu S/o Prem and Sukhbir S/o Tarachand (respondent Nos.5 to 7) were placed in column No.2. 5. Later, during the course of the Trial, the statement of the complainant/Devendri was recorded as PW6. Based on the said statement, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon respondent Nos.5 to 7. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2021 (impugned order). 6. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -4- 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of Anurag S/o Anil and Monu S/o Prem finds mention in the FIR that they had taken away the deceased along with them. The name of Sukhbir also finds mention in the FIR, wherein it is alleged that he had full information of the murder of Manoj, the son of the petitioner. The Investigating Agency has exonerated respondent Nos.5 to 7 without any basis whatsoever and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the said persons be summoned to face Trial along with the accused already facing trial. 8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and it has been found that the death was on account of drowning only at the instance of those accused who were challaned and the answering respondents have been found to be innocent. The Trial is at its fag-end with 15 of the 17 prosecution witnesses having been examined. At this stage, if the answering respondents were to be summoned as additional accused, the Trial would begin de novo delaying proceedings. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed. 9. The learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 (prospective accused), on the other hand, contends that the complainant/Devendri (PW6) allegedly saw the deceased with the accused on 05.07.2020. The dead body was discovered on 07.07.2020. The postmortem examination took place on 08.07.2020. However, the FIR came to be registered only on 12.07.2020 i.e. 07 days after the deceased was seen in the JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -5- company of the accused. Therefore, a coloured version has been set up by the complainant so as to implicate all the accused. The statements of Devendra @ Ghisu S/o Raj Singh, Jiendra @ Jite S/o Mansarovar and Shil @ Shile S/o Dharme have been recorded during the course of the investigation as per which the deceased was in the company of Anil alias Baba, Rinku, Ankit alias Chamu (respondent Nos.5 to 7) were not present at that time. The police investigation has been conducted in a fair manner and it is only then that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been exonerated. As 15 of the 17 prosecution witnesses already stand examined and Devendra @ Ghisu S/o Raj Singh and Jitendra @ Jite S/o Mansarovar have not even supported the prosecution case qua the challaned accused, there is little likelihood of the conviction of the answering respondents even, if they were to be summoned as additional accused. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado & another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. As per record, there is a delay of 07 days in registration of the FIR. Therefore, the possibility of a coloured version being set up cannot be ruled out. Three witnesses namely, Devendra @ Ghisu S/o Raj Singh, Jitendra @ Jite S/o Mansarovar and Shil @ Shile S/o Dharm have stated during the course of the investigation that only 03 of the challaned accused (respondent Nos.2 to 4) were there at the time of the occurrence along with JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-534-2022 (O&M) -6- the deceased. Two of the said witnesses namely, Devendra @ Ghisu and Jitendra @ Jite S/o Mansarovar have not supported the case of the prosecution when they deposed during the course of the Trial. The only evidence available is the statement of complainant/Devendri (PW6) which remains uncorroborated. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, there seems little justification in summoning the answering respondents as it cannot be said that there are reasonable prospects of their conviction. 12. It cannot be lost sight of that 15 of the 17 prosecution witnesses already stand examined and the Trial at its fag-end. In case, the answering respondents are ordered to be summoned, the Trial would begin de novo further delaying its conclusion. 13. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances and there being little prospects of the conviction of the accused sought to be summoned and the ratio of the judgment in Michael Machado (supra), I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 27.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.27 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document