CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) Lovish @ Love Sardana ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 27.07.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.07.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.07.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Aryan Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the present petitioner-Lovish @ Love Sardana was summoned as an additional accused to face trial in case arising out of FIR No.166 dated 18.07.2020 registered under Sections 323, 341, 328, 307, 506, 447, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -2- 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 complainant Yudhister Narang alleging therein that there was a long-standing dispute regarding agricultural land between him and his brother Ghanshyam. On 10.07.2020, the complainant along with his wife had gone to their agricultural fields. At about 5:00 PM, accused Hardik, juvenile 'X' and their friend Lovish (present petitioner) came to the fields and started damaging the complainant's crop with a tractor. When the complainant's wife objected, they quarrelled with her. Thereafter, the son of the complainant and his wife were called to Police Post Nagpur, while the complainant remained in the fields. It was alleged that Hardik again came along with juvenile 'X' and the present petitioner, resumed damaging the crop. When the complainant objected to the same, they assaulted him. Hardik brought a bottle containing some poisonous substance, juvenile 'X' caught hold of the complainant's hands and the present petitioner caught hold of his legs, whereafter Hardik forcibly administered the poisonous substance into his mouth. The complainant further alleged that because of the land dispute, accused Pushkar, Rakesh Dhamija and Lalita Dhamija had been threatening him and his family members over telephone to vacate the disputed land. Subsequently, in his supplementary statement recorded on 19.07.2020, the complainant stated that about twenty days prior to the occurrence, Rakesh Dhamija, Lalita Dhamija, Pushkar and Ghanshyam had visited his house and threatened him and his family with dire consequences if they did not vacate the land. Consequently, Section 120-B IPC was added to the FIR. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -3- 3. During investigation, Hardik was arrested and a plastic bottle used in the commission of the offence was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. Although allegations were levelled against the present petitioner, Lalita Dhamija and Rakesh Dhamija, the investigating agency found them innocent and presented the challan only against Hardik, Pushkar and Ghanshyam, keeping the names of the present petitioner and the other two persons in Column No.2. 4. During the course of trial, the complainant appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. He specifically deposed that Hardik, juvenile 'X' and the present petitioner had come to the fields, damaged the standing crop and that while juvenile 'X' caught hold of his hands, the present petitioner caught hold of his legs and Hardik forcibly administered poisonous substance into his mouth. PW-1 further deposed that Rakesh Dhamija, Lalita Dhamija and Pushkar had also threatened him and his family members in connection with the land dispute. On the basis of the deposition of PW-1 and the earlier version recorded in the FIR, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioner, Lalita Dhamija and Rakesh Dhamija as additional accused. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide order dated 03.09.2022, allowed the application holding that the testimony of PW-1 coupled with the allegations contained in the FIR constituted sufficient evidence to summon the proposed accused to face trial. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same had been MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -4- passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the settled principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that after a thorough investigation, the police found the petitioner innocent and deliberately did not present the challan against him. It is argued that the petitioner was merely a friend of co-accused Hardik and had no concern with the alleged occurrence. Except for the bald allegations made by the complainant, there is no independent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and there is no material corroborating his alleged participation. The petitioner was summoned solely on the basis of the complainant's statement, which does not satisfy the stringent requirement for invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the impugned summoning order already stands quashed qua co-accused Lalita Rani and Rakesh Kumar. The case of the petitioner is on the same footing with that of the said co-accused, vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed by this Court in CRR-2128-2022. On parity, he also deserves to be granted the same benefit. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner was specifically named in the FIR itself and an active role was attributed to him from the very inception. The complainant consistently alleged that the petitioner accompanied Hardik and juvenile 'X' to the fields, participated in damaging the standing crop and, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -5- while Hardik administered poisonous substance to the complainant, the petitioner caught hold of the complainant's legs to facilitate the commission of the offence. During trial, the complainant, while appearing as PW-1, reiterated the very same allegations on oath before the Court. The deposition made before the Court constitutes substantive evidence and clearly implicates the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are distinct as he had been attributed specific overt act, whereas the above named co-accused, qua whom the impugned summoning order stands quashed, were not attributed any such overt act. It is further argued that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 8. 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 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 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -6- 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. 9. 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. (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. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -7- (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. (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). MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -8- (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). (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.” 10. On applying the aforementioned proposition of law to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the petitioner was not only specifically named in the FIR from the very inception, but a distinct and active role was also attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence. The complainant categorically alleged that while co- accused Hardik forcibly administered the poisonous substance, juvenile 'X' caught hold of his hands and the present petitioner caught hold of his legs, thereby facilitating the commission of the offence. Significantly, when the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -9- complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-1, he reiterated these very allegations on oath before the Court without any material deviation. Thus, the evidence that surfaced during trial was not a mere reiteration of vague or omnibus allegations but a specific ocular account directly implicating the petitioner in the occurrence. 11. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the investigating agency had found him innocent and, therefore, he could not have been summoned, does not merit acceptance. It is now well settled that the opinion formed by the investigating agency is neither conclusive nor binding upon the Court. The very object behind conferring powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that if credible evidence emerges during trial indicating the involvement of a person who has not been sent up for trial, the Court is not rendered powerless merely because name of such person was kept in Column No.2 of the police report. The jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is founded on the evidence recorded before the Court and not on the conclusions drawn during investigation. Therefore, the exoneration of the petitioner during investigation cannot eclipse the substantive evidence which subsequently surfaced during trial. 12. At the stage of considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate the credibility or reliability of the evidence as would be done at the stage of final adjudication. The sufficiency or otherwise of corroborative evidence, the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner are all matters which can appropriately be examined during the course of trial. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the evidence MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -10- appearing before it is of such quality that, if left unrebutted, it reasonably points towards the involvement of the proposed accused. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual or mechanical manner. The learned trial Court has considered the allegations contained in the FIR, the testimony of PW-1 recorded before the Court and thereafter arrived at a conscious satisfaction that sufficient evidence had emerged warranting the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused. So far as the contention that the impugned summoning order already stands quashed qua co-accused Lalita Rani and Rakesh Kumar and they were similarly situated with the present petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 13.11.2024 would clearly show that no overt act was attributed to them and the only allegations levelled against them was that they were extending threats to the complainant to vacate the land in dispute. Those allegations were found to be general in nature as no date, month or year was mentioned as to when, they had extended threats to the complainant. Whereas, the petitioner, as mentioned above, has been attributed a specific overt act. Hence, his case cannot be stated to be at par with that of the said co-accused. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the evidence brought on record during the course of trial satisfies the threshold envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 03.09.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity calling MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 2169 of 2022 (O&M) -11- for interference by this Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30.07.2026 (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 2026.07.30 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document