CRM-M-43648-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CRM-M-43648-2023 Date of decision : 03.09.2026 PARKASH SINGH @ RAM PARKASH ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Malhar Singh Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, as well as the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, in FIR No.0016 dated 26.01.2019, registered under Sections 323, 325 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, whereby the application moved by the prosecution for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused has been allowed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Surinderjit Singh moved a complaint alleging that Tarlochan Singh, Balwinder Singh and the present petitioner-Parkash Singh attacked him. It was alleged that co-accused Tarlochan Singh pushed the complainant, as a result of which he fell down, whereafter co-accused Balwinder Singh gave a dang blow on his left knee/leg, causing a fracture, while Tarlochan Singh gave another dang blow which hit his right shoulder. Balwinder Kaur (wife of the complainant) is stated to have reached SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -2- the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner was named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, he was found innocent. Subsequently, PW-2 Surinderjit Singh(complainant) and PW-4 Balwinder Kaur(wife of the complainant), in their examination-in-chief, attributed participation in the occurrence to the petitioner as well. On the basis of the said deposition, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. The said application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, vide order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-4), and the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-5). Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly summoned to face trial after a considerable lapse of time. It is submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.01.2016, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 26.01.2019, after a substantial delay of more than 08 days. It is further submitted that a detailed inquiry was conducted by the police authorities on the complaints submitted by the petitioner and it has been specifically recorded in the inquiry report dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) that nothing had surfaced during investigation to show that the petitioner had any role in causing injuries to the complainant and thereafter, the petitioner was declared innocent. It is further submitted that since the petitioner and the complainant are brother, the instant FIR is an outcome of a property dispute and is counterblast to an earlier FIR No.314 dated 29.12.2015 under Sections 342 and 34 IPC which was registered against the complainant, his wife and his son on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner's wife. It is, therefore, submitted that the subsequent criminal proceedings have been initiated by the complainant against SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -3- the petitioner to put pressurise in the continuing dispute between the parties. It is also submitted that although the alleged occurrence took place on 18.01.2016 but no effective criminal proceedings were pursued against the petitioner for a considerable period and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was ultimately moved only after the petitioner had already been found innocent during investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M No.24488 of 2019 seeking quashing of the FIR qua him. During the pendency of that petition, the State apprised the Court that the petitioner had been found innocent during investigation and had been placed in Column No.2 of the challan. On that basis, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 30.01.2023. It is, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition and for setting aside the orders dated 13.07.2022 and 23.03.2023, whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the short reply filed by way of affidavit filed by Mr. Kulwant Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, submits that initially, on the basis of the statement of complainant-Surinderjit Singh and the medical evidence available on record, DDR No.39 dated 16.03.2016 was recorded in respect of the occurrence dated 18.01.2016, and the allegations at that stage were primarily against accused Tarlochan Singh and Balwinder Singh. Subsequently, upon applications submitted by the complainant before the higher police authorities, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the then Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Hoshiarpur, who found the petitioner, along with the other accused, to be involved in the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 120-B IPC. The said inquiry report was approved by the SSP, Hoshiarpur, and thereafter FIR No.16 dated 26.01.2019 was registered at Police Station Tanda against the SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -4- petitioner and the co-accused. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner had joined the investigation on 13.04.2019, whereas the co-accused joined investigation on 16.04.2019 and were released on bail as the offences were bailable. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 12.06.2019 before the SSP, Hoshiarpur, claiming innocence, an inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Hoshiarpur, wherein the petitioner was found innocent and the offence under Section 120-B IPC was not found to be made out. During the course of trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the present petitioner as an additional accused which was rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.07.2022. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 6. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was named in the FIR. However, no specific role or overt act was attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence. The allegations in the FIR were primarily against co-accused Tarlochan Singh and Balwinder Singh. It is further evident that during the course of investigation, the police conducted an inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and, upon consideration of the material collected during investigation, he was declared innocent. Consequently, his name was placed in Column No.2 of the final report. An inquiry was also conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Hoshiarpur which resulted in a finding that there was no sufficient material to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence and that the offence under Section 120-B IPC was also not made out. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had been found innocent during investigation was not merely a SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -5- conclusion drawn at the initial stage, but was the result of an inquiry conducted by a senior police officer. 7. It is true that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an independent judicial power and can be exercised where, from the evidence brought before the Court, it appears that a person who is not already an accused has committed an offence for which such person can be tried together with the other accused. However, it is an extraordinary and discretionary power and is required to be exercised cautiously and on the basis of cogent material appearing during the course of trial. 8. In the case in hand, the learned Trial Court has primarily proceeded on the basis of the statements of PW-2 Surinderjit Singh and PW-4 Balwinder Kaur, who, in their examination-in-chief, attributed involvement in the occurrence to the petitioner. However, while considering the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court was also required to examine the fact that the petitioner had not been attributed any specific role in the FIR and, more importantly, that he had subsequently been found innocent during investigation pursuant to a police inquiry. The said material was relevant for determining whether the evidence recorded during trial was of such quality as would justify the exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that although the learned Trial Court has noticed the fact that the petitioner had been found innocent during investigation but no satisfactory reason has been recorded as to why the report of the police finding the petitioner innocent was being discarded or why the subsequent statements of the prosecution witnesses were considered sufficient to summon him as an additional accused. Furthermore, the revisional Court, while considering the challenge to the summoning order, has also not adequately SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -6- examined this aspect of the matter. The fact that the petitioner had been found innocent during investigation and had been placed in Column No.2 of the final report was a material circumstance which required consideration, particularly when the FIR itself did not attribute any specific role to him. The mere fact that the prosecution witnesses subsequently made allegations against the petitioner in their examination-in-chief could not, by itself, be treated as sufficient without examining the entire surrounding circumstances and the material collected during investigation. 10. Moreover, the prosecution case itself shows that there was a considerable gap between the alleged occurrence and the registration of the FIR. The occurrence is stated to be of 18.01.2016, whereas the FIR was registered on 26.01.2019. During this intervening period, the matter underwent various stages of inquiry before the police authorities. The petitioner had also been subjected to an inquiry on his claim of innocence, in which he was found innocent. The impugned summoning order also does not adequately deal with the material circumstances like as to why the finding of the investigating agency that the petitioner was innocent was not accepted or what material appearing during trial was considered sufficient to overcome the said finding. There is also no adequate discussion regarding the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. These aspects were material for determining whether the stringent power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought to have been exercised. 11. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, as well as the revisional order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur are liable to be quashed and the matter is required to be considered afresh. SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-43648-2023 -7- 12. Consequently, the impugned summoning order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, and the order dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration of the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court shall consider the said application afresh after taking into account the evidence which has come on record during trial, the contents of the FIR, the material collected during investigation, and, in particular, the final report/inquiry report whereby the petitioner was found innocent. The learned Trial Court shall pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 21.09.2026 at 10:00 A.M. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is partly allowed. 15. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (H.S.GREWAL) 03.09.2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.09.08 09.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh