IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 130 SONIA KAPOOR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana MANISHA BATRA CRM-M-11313 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexures A Main case 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short dated 14.03.2024 passed by case arising out of FIR No.859 dated 04.12.2020 323 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as well as the order dated 1 Sessions Judge, Ambala in revision petition No. CIS whereby, the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2024 had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: SONIA KAPOOR Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) 11313-2025 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 out of FIR No.859 dated 04.12.2020 323 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was sed as well as the order dated 18.01.202 Sessions Judge, Ambala in revision petition No. CIS whereby, the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2024 had also been dismissed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.03.2025 …. Petitioner Versus …. Respondents MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2 are taken on record. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of order learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala in out of FIR No.859 dated 04.12.2020, registered under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was 8.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in revision petition No. CIS-79 of 2024-CRR, whereby, the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated Bharatiya seeking quashing of order , Ambala in registered under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was passed by learned Additional CRR, whereby, the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present petitioner on the allegation who is her sister with her son Swayam Verma opened an assault upon her and sexually harassed her and then tried to remove her clothing while accused Hema Verma caught hold rescue herself but they contin and intervened in the matter and got her released. She alleged that Verma used to sexually harass mother. While alleging that also extended threat to kill her, she prayed for taking action in the matter. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Offences under Sections investigation. Swayam Verma arrested and challaned. His name was kept in column No.2 of the challan report. Hema Verma was arrested and then released on bail. facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. 3. The petitioner was examined before learned trial Court as PW After recording her summoning the ab application was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present petitioner on the allegations that on 15.10.2020, Hema Verma who is her sister-in-law (already arraigned as accused with her son Swayam Verma, had come to her house. Swayam Verma had opened an assault upon her and sexually harassed her and then tried to remove her clothing while accused Hema Verma caught hold rescue herself but they continued assaulting her. Her husband reached there and intervened in the matter and got her released. She alleged that used to sexually harass her every third day mother. While alleging that the accused Hema Verma and also extended threat to kill her, she prayed for taking action in the matter. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Offences under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC were deleted during the course of Swayam Verma was found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. His name was kept in column No.2 of the challan report. Hema Verma was arrested and then released on bail. facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 The petitioner was examined before learned trial Court as PW After recording her sworn deposition, she moved an application for summoning the above-named Swayam Verma application was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated -2- Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged that on 15.10.2020, Hema Verma (already arraigned as accused and facing trial) along had come to her house. Swayam Verma had opened an assault upon her and sexually harassed her and then tried to remove her clothing while accused Hema Verma caught hold of her hands. She tried to ued assaulting her. Her husband reached there and intervened in the matter and got her released. She alleged that Swayam her every third day, on the instigation of his accused Hema Verma and Swayam Verma had also extended threat to kill her, she prayed for taking action in the matter. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Offences 354 and 354B of IPC were deleted during the course of was found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. His name was kept in column No.2 of the challan report. Hema Verma was arrested and then released on bail. Presently she is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 The petitioner was examined before learned trial Court as PW-1. , she moved an application for Swayam Verma as additional accused. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged that on 15.10.2020, Hema Verma along had come to her house. Swayam Verma had opened an assault upon her and sexually harassed her and then tried to remove her hands. She tried to ued assaulting her. Her husband reached there Swayam on the instigation of his had also extended threat to kill her, she prayed for taking action in the matter. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Offences 354 and 354B of IPC were deleted during the course of was found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. His name was kept in column No.2 of the challan Presently she is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 . , she moved an application for as additional accused. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 14.03.2024. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 14.03.2024 which as discussed above 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by learned trial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned Courts below had ignored the form of testimony of the petitioner to show that the proposed accused had sexually harassed her and had tried to outrage her modesty on the fateful day. He had tried to remove her clothing and had sexually was specifically deposed by her in her sworn deposition. Her statement was corroboration to the allegations as leve as recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C but while passing the impugned dated 14.03.2024, learned trial Magistrate did not take all these facts into consideration. It is further argued that learned Revisional Court also did not appreciate the evidence produced on record in a proper manner erred in holding th proposed accused was involved in commission of offence alleged against him. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside petition deserves to be accepted and the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2 Swayam Verma 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner a length and have gone through the material place 6. At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under: M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) 14.03.2024. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 14.03.2024 which as discussed above, had also been dism It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by learned trial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned Courts below had ignored the fact that there was overwhelming evidence in the of testimony of the petitioner to show that the proposed accused had sexually harassed her and had tried to outrage her modesty on the fateful day. He had tried to remove her clothing and had sexually was specifically deposed by her in her sworn deposition. Her statement was corroboration to the allegations as levelled in the FIR as well as her statement as recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C but while passing the impugned dated 14.03.2024, learned trial Magistrate did not take all these facts into consideration. It is further argued that learned Revisional Court also did not appreciate the evidence produced on record in a proper manner erred in holding that there was no sufficient eviden proposed accused was involved in commission of offence alleged against him. therefore, argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside petition deserves to be accepted and the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2 Swayam Verma is liable to be summoned as additional accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner a length and have gone through the material place At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under: -3- 14.03.2024. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated had also been dismissed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by learned trial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned fact that there was overwhelming evidence in the of testimony of the petitioner to show that the proposed accused had sexually harassed her and had tried to outrage her modesty on the fateful day. He had tried to remove her clothing and had sexually harassed her and this fact was specifically deposed by her in her sworn deposition. Her statement was in led in the FIR as well as her statement as recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C but while passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2024, learned trial Magistrate did not take all these facts into consideration. It is further argued that learned Revisional Court also did not appreciate the evidence produced on record in a proper manner and gravely at there was no sufficient evidence on file to show that the proposed accused was involved in commission of offence alleged against him. therefore, argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, petition deserves to be accepted and the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2 is liable to be summoned as additional accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have gone through the material placed on record. At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under:- 14.03.2024. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by learned trial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, learned fact that there was overwhelming evidence in the of testimony of the petitioner to show that the proposed accused had sexually harassed her and had tried to outrage her modesty on the fateful day. harassed her and this fact in led in the FIR as well as her statement order dated 14.03.2024, learned trial Magistrate did not take all these facts into consideration. It is further argued that learned Revisional Court also did not and gravely on file to show that the proposed accused was involved in commission of offence alleged against him. , petition deserves to be accepted and the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2 considerable At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not 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 a (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 sum inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub (1), then (a) the proceedings in respect of such person 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." 7. 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 Cou 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 M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. - (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not 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 (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person 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." 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 -4- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such ppears 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 (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon mons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced (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 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 rt 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 "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such (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 (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon mons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have section shall be commenced (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 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 rt 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 and tried together with the Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 accused, for the offence which appears to have been committed by such persons summoned as additional accused. 8. The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had arisen for detailed considerati 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 t 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 pe 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 th facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross 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 s of Cr.P.C. M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) accused, for the offence which appears to have been committed by such persons summoned as additional accused. The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had arisen for detailed consideration in , (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. 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 th 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 ed 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 -5- accused, for the offence which appears to have been committed by such The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section 319 on in Hardeep Singh v. State of , (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 hat the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 rson 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 examination, it requires much strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be ed 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 hould refrain from exercising power under Section 319 accused, for the offence which appears to have been committed by such The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section 319 Hardeep Singh v. State of , (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 hat the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 rson 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 at though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not examination, it requires much strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be ed 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 hould refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 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 (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 321, wherein it was observed as under: “(i) That while exercising the powers under section summon the persons not charge the real perpetrator of (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 cou 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 (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 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 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 to take appropriate steps an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) 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 o (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 321, wherein it was observed as under: (i) That while exercising the powers under section 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 cou 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 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 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. -6- 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 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 section319 CrPC and to sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow 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 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 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. CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. 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 , CrPC and to sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow (ii) For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal (iii) The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature rts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished (iv) To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to (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 any person (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 our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court for proceeding against any person not being Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 (ix) The power under section stage after the charge judgment, excep committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the process into motion. (x) The court can exercise the power under section the trial proceeds and commences with the recording (xi) The word "evidence" in section 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 Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under section 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 app section (xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination CrPC can be exercised. (xv) That power under section stage of completion of examination wait till the said evidence is tested on cross (xvi) Even in a case where th 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 still not powerle persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) (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 committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the process into motion. (x) The court can exercise the power under section the trial proceeds and commences with the recording (xi) The word "evidence" in section 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 Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under section 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 CrPC can be exercised. (xv) That power under section 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in wait till the said evidence is tested on cross (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 persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence -7- (1) CrPC can be exercised at any sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of t during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the (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 (xiii) If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence chief, it can exercise the power under CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). (xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of in-chief, powers under section 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the in-chief and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination. e 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 sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is ss 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 (1) CrPC can be exercised at any sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the CrPC only after CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and as account by the 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected (xiii) If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence chief, it can exercise the power under (xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the chief and the court need not to e 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 sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is CrPC and even those sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of examination (xvii) While exercising the powers under section 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of the there was delay of 01 month and 20 days in report that has not been explained. proposed accused had assaulted the petitioner, tease clothing in the presence of her husband, father sworn deposition, copy of which has been produced on 2, she is shown to have stated that firstly the accused Hema Verma had caught hold of her hands and pulled her breast and tore off her clothing. It is apparent from the above that the allegations as level allegations as level investigating agency had conducted thorough investigation in the matter and had found Swayam Verma challan him for commission of subject offence petitioner is not in consonance can be stated to accused rather her version that the proposed accused had molested her and tried to outrage her modesty and tor M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) 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 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.” On applying the above discussed proposition of law to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present there was delay of 01 month and 20 days in report that has not been explained. Then, as per the allegations in the FIR, the proposed accused had assaulted the petitioner, tease clothing in the presence of her husband, father sworn deposition, copy of which has been produced on 2, she is shown to have stated that firstly the accused Hema Verma had caught hands and twisted them, then the proposed accused molested her her breast and tore off her clothing. It is apparent from the above at the allegations as levelled in the FIR are totally different from the allegations as levelled in the FIR by the petitioner in her sworn deposition. The investigating agency had conducted thorough investigation in the matter and Swayam Verma to be innocent and therefore, did not arrest and challan him for commission of subject offence not in consonance of the allegations as level can be stated to prima facie sufficient to show the involvement of the proposed accused rather her version that the proposed accused had molested her and tried to outrage her modesty and tore off her clothing in the presen -8- surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of 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 above discussed proposition of law to the present case, tt has been noticed that there was delay of 01 month and 20 days in reporting the matter to the Police Then, as per the allegations in the FIR, the proposed accused had assaulted the petitioner, teased and tried to remove her clothing in the presence of her husband, father-in-law and her son. But in her sworn deposition, copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure A- 2, she is shown to have stated that firstly the accused Hema Verma had caught them, then the proposed accused molested her her breast and tore off her clothing. It is apparent from the above ed in the FIR are totally different from the ed in the FIR by the petitioner in her sworn deposition. The investigating agency had conducted thorough investigation in the matter and to be innocent and therefore, did not arrest and challan him for commission of subject offences. The sworn deposition of the allegations as levelled in the FIR nor they the involvement of the proposed accused rather her version that the proposed accused had molested her and off her clothing in the presence of her surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in the form of 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 above discussed proposition of law to the , tt has been noticed that the matter to the Police Then, as per the allegations in the FIR, the and tried to remove her law and her son. But in her - 2, she is shown to have stated that firstly the accused Hema Verma had caught them, then the proposed accused molested her her breast and tore off her clothing. It is apparent from the above ed in the FIR are totally different from the ed in the FIR by the petitioner in her sworn deposition. The investigating agency had conducted thorough investigation in the matter and to be innocent and therefore, did not arrest and . The sworn deposition of the ed in the FIR nor they the involvement of the proposed accused rather her version that the proposed accused had molested her and of her Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 husband, father improbable. 11 Undoubtedly, the trial Court was competent to exercise its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner, however, from a perusal of her testimony, it is very much explicit that she has given The evidence evidence. The investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the matter and had found the proposed accused to be innocent. T law is that the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a finding that there was a complicity to the proposed accused in the crime evidence which if go than prima facie Obviously, there is absence of such satisfaction in the evidence petitioner. As such, in my considered opinion, there was no scope for the trial Court under Secti proposed accused and in the absence of such satisfaction, it rightly refrained itself from exercising powers under Sections 319 desirable for summoning the proposed accuse found on the record. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the observations as made by learned trial Court by giving well or illegality can be stated to have been committed by the Courts bel passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, finding no reasonable ground to M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) husband, father-in-law and her son appears Undoubtedly, the trial Court was competent to exercise its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner, however, from a perusal of her testimony, it is very much explicit that she has given a version contradictory to the vidence so led by her cannot be stated to be evidence. The investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the matter and had found the proposed accused to be innocent. T law is that the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a finding that there was a to the proposed accused in the crime evidence which if goes unrebutted would led to conviction but it prima facie evidence recorded at the time of framing of charge. Obviously, there is absence of such satisfaction in the evidence petitioner. As such, in my considered opinion, there was no scope for the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to guilt of the proposed accused and in the absence of such satisfaction, it rightly refrained itself from exercising powers under Sections 319 desirable for summoning the proposed accuse found on the record. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the observations as made by learned trial Court by giving well-reasoned findings. No irregularity or illegality can be stated to have been committed by the Courts bel passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, finding no reasonable ground to -9- s to be highly unnatural and Undoubtedly, the trial Court was competent to exercise its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner, however, from a perusal of her testimony, it is very much explicit the one as mentioned in the FIR. stated to be stronger and reliable evidence. The investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the matter and had found the proposed accused to be innocent. The well settled proposition of law is that the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a finding that there was a to the proposed accused in the crime, must not be more than an to conviction but it must be more evidence recorded at the time of framing of charge. Obviously, there is absence of such satisfaction in the evidence led by the petitioner. As such, in my considered opinion, there was no scope for the trial any opinion as to guilt of the proposed accused and in the absence of such satisfaction, it rightly refrained itself from exercising powers under Sections 319 of Cr.P.C. as the satisfaction desirable for summoning the proposed accused under this provision was not found on the record. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the observations as reasoned findings. No irregularity or illegality can be stated to have been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, finding no reasonable ground to to be highly unnatural and Undoubtedly, the trial Court was competent to exercise its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement recorded by the petitioner, however, from a perusal of her testimony, it is very much explicit one as mentioned in the FIR. stronger and reliable evidence. The investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the matter and he well settled proposition of law is that the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a finding that there was a than an must be more evidence recorded at the time of framing of charge. led by the petitioner. As such, in my considered opinion, there was no scope for the trial any opinion as to guilt of the proposed accused and in the absence of such satisfaction, it rightly refrained Cr.P.C. as the satisfaction this provision was not found on the record. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the observations as reasoned findings. No irregularity ow while passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, finding no reasonable ground to Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9780 of 2025 interfere, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition dismissed. 12 It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 19.03.2025 Jyoti-IV M No.9780 of 2025 (O&M) interfere, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No -10- interfere, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition. Hence, the same is It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No Hence, the same is It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.03.24 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document