127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NARESH WALIA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is for setting aside impugned order dated Additional Sessions Judge, order dated 25.04.2022 dismissing the Cr.P.C. for summoning dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Naresh Kumar recorded his statement while he was going from BTM Chowk to of Kamlesh in D.C. Colony, then Sachin with iron rod, Pankaj with iron rod, Neeraj Chand came together and stopped him a lesson for demanding money from IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH NARESH WALIA V/S HARYANA AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is for setting aside impugned order dated 29.05.2024 Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which order dated 25.04.2022 dismissing the application filed under Section 319 for summoning private respondents, as additional accused Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Naresh Kumar recorded his statement to the effect that on 22.03.2018 at about 07 was going from BTM Chowk to his house of Kamlesh in D.C. Colony, then Sachin armed with , Pankaj, Chhatar Singh both armed with , Neeraj (respondent No.2 herein), armed with Chand came together and stopped his path and exhorted that a lesson for demanding money from them. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-12692-2025 in/and CRM-M-16850-2025 Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Punjab. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 29.05.2024 passed by learned , vide which, revision petition against application filed under Section 319 , as additional accused, was Brief facts of the present case are that complainant Naresh Kumar n 22.03.2018 at about 07:00 PM, house and reached near the shop armed with danda, Deepak armed both armed with danda, Mukesh armed , armed with danda and Khem path and exhorted that they will teach . They gave injuries with their MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-12692-2025 CRM-M-16850 different weapons on Sunil (respondent No.3 herein) fist blows to the complainant. commotions Bachao seeing Manoj coming, all the accused person along weapons left the place of occurrence and ran away. was registered. 3. In consequence of the FIR ( investigation by the concerned police, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the learned trial Court against co respondent Nos.2 The learned trial Court framed charges testimony of PW application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for summoning respondent No dismissed vide order dated petitioner filed a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated (Annexure P-8) petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner complicity of the private respondent together and in a de petitioner and he suffered six injuries on the head of the petitioner and he suffered 2025 in/and 16850-2025 different weapons on various parts of body of the complainant. (respondent No.3 herein) and Pawan also came there and gave kick and to the complainant. The complainant Bachao-Bachao, then his real brother Manoj came seeing Manoj coming, all the accused person along weapons left the place of occurrence and ran away. In consequence of the FIR (supra n by the concerned police, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the learned trial Court against co .2 and 3 as they were declared innocent during investigation. The learned trial Court framed charges against the co PW-1 i.e. petitioner/complainant, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for summoning respondent Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P petitioner filed a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, , which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 8). Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present Learned counsel for the petitioner complicity of the private respondents is writ large as all of them joined hands together and in a determined manner, lodged their brutal attack on the petitioner and he suffered six injuries. Out of those, two on the head of the petitioner and he suffered Sub 2 various parts of body of the complainant. Thereafter, Pawan also came there and gave kick and The complainant fell down and raised real brother Manoj came at the spot. On seeing Manoj coming, all the accused person along with their respective weapons left the place of occurrence and ran away. Hence, the FIR (supra) supra) and after completion of the n by the concerned police, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the learned trial Court against co-accused but not against declared innocent during investigation. against the co-accused. After the 1 i.e. petitioner/complainant, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for as additional accused, which was (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, , which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2024 . Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the is writ large as all of them joined hands termined manner, lodged their brutal attack on the ut of those, two injuries were inflicted Sub-Dural hemorrhage and was MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-12692-2025 CRM-M-16850 referred to a medical college for his treatment initially, 09 persons were named in the FIR agency, without any justifiable cause, has declared respondent Nos.2 and 3 innocent and placed them in column No.2 of the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C fallen into grave error by not cho Cr.P.C. Further, the and specific injuries have furthermore submits that r injury on the head of the petitioner with a wooden stick and respondent No.3 has given a stick blow and fist blows. that both the Courts have not considered the disclosure statements i.e. Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C and Pawan respectively and of respondent Nos.2 and 3 the learned trial Court on oath reiterated the specific allegations made against respondent Nos.2 and 3 such, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by summoning respondent Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused. 5. Learned State counsel, appears on advance notice and opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground the learned Court below has passed a well material available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after appreciating the material available on record, 2025 in/and 16850-2025 referred to a medical college for his treatment 09 persons were named in the FIR without any justifiable cause, has declared respondent Nos.2 and 3 innocent and placed them in column No.2 of the final report filed under Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that fallen into grave error by not choosing to invoke the provisions of Section 319 Further, the private respondents were duly named in the FIR ( and specific injuries have been attributed to them. furthermore submits that respondent No.2 has been specifically attributed injury on the head of the petitioner with a wooden stick and respondent No.3 has given a stick blow and fist blows. Learned counsel still fur both the Courts have not considered the disclosure statements i.e. Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C made by the accused and Pawan respectively and all three of them have admitted the involvement of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner. Moreover, the learned trial Court on oath, as a prosecution witness reiterated the specific allegations made against respondent Nos.2 and 3 such, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the power under Section by summoning respondent Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused. Learned State counsel, appears on advance notice and opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned order based on proper appreciation of material available on record. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after appreciating the material available on record, this Court finds no force in the 3 referred to a medical college for his treatment. He further contends that (supra) and the investigating without any justifiable cause, has declared respondent Nos.2 and 3 as innocent and placed them in column No.2 of the final report filed under Learned counsel submits that both the Courts below have sing to invoke the provisions of Section 319 private respondents were duly named in the FIR (supra) been attributed to them. Learned counsel espondent No.2 has been specifically attributed injury on the head of the petitioner with a wooden stick and respondent No.3 Learned counsel still further submits both the Courts have not considered the disclosure statements i.e. made by the accused Deepak, Mukesh ll three of them have admitted the involvement . Moreover, while deposing before as a prosecution witness, the petitioner has reiterated the specific allegations made against respondent Nos.2 and 3. As such, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the power under Section by summoning respondent Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused. Learned State counsel, appears on advance notice and per contra, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground the learned Court sed on proper appreciation of Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after his Court finds no force in the MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-12692-2025 CRM-M-16850 arguments advanced by FIR (supra) itself, he has alleged that Deepak, who was armed with an iron rod has caused injuries on right side of his hand. Thereafter, Sachin armed with a stick, has caused another blow on his hand. Further, Pankaj, Khem Chand and Chhatar Singh respondent No.3 respondent No.2 prosecution case and the material available on re injuries suffered by the petitioner in the head are only attributable to the private respondents. The investigating agency, after conclusion of the trial, has presented the final report against seven accused persons under Se 323/325/341/506/148/149 of IPC. evidence on record, which would satisfy the principal as culled out by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Vs. State of Punjab, SC 2014(1) admittedly, the petitioner suffered six injuries and seven persons have already been challaned by the investigating agency, as such, cogent evidence on record to establish that more than a made out against respondent N accused. 7. Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled laid down that: "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those 2025 in/and 16850-2025 arguments advanced by him. As per the case set up by ) itself, he has alleged that Deepak, who was armed with an iron rod has caused injuries on right side of his hand. Thereafter, Sachin armed with a stick, has caused another blow on his hand. Further, Pankaj, Khem Chhatar Singh inflicted injuries upon the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3-Sunil came there and gave kick and fist blows and respondent No.2-Neeraj gave a danda blow on his head. prosecution case and the material available on re injuries suffered by the petitioner in the head are only attributable to the private respondents. The investigating agency, after conclusion of the trial, has presented the final report against seven accused persons under Se 323/325/341/506/148/149 of IPC. There is no fresh material or any other evidence on record, which would satisfy the principal as culled out by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Vs. State of Punjab, SC 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623 admittedly, the petitioner suffered six injuries and seven persons have already been challaned by the investigating agency, as such, cogent evidence on record to establish that more than a made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3, to summon Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those 4 him. As per the case set up by the petitioner, in the ) itself, he has alleged that Deepak, who was armed with an iron rod has caused injuries on right side of his hand. Thereafter, Sachin armed with a stick, has caused another blow on his hand. Further, Pankaj, Khem inflicted injuries upon the petitioner. Thereafter, Sunil came there and gave kick and fist blows and blow on his head. The perusal of the prosecution case and the material available on record does not indicate that the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the head are only attributable to the private respondents. The investigating agency, after conclusion of the trial, has presented the final report against seven accused persons under Secitons here is no fresh material or any other evidence on record, which would satisfy the principal as culled out by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hardeep Singh RCR (Criminal) 623. In the case at hand, admittedly, the petitioner suffered six injuries and seven persons have already been challaned by the investigating agency, as such, there is no credible and cogent evidence on record to establish that more than a prima facie case is to summon them as additional Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hardeep Singh (supra) has "105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-12692-2025 CRM-M-16850 cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Ju that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cav 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross mere probability of his comp which is more than prima charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the word together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.7373 of 2021) (supra) laid down that: "The Constitution 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above h applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." 2025 in/and 16850-2025 cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Ju that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima 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 stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima-facie case as exercised 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 the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the ccused.” Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.7373 of 2021), laid down that: "The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above h applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." 5 cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. 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 evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested examination, it requires much stronger evidence than licity. The test that has to be applied is one facie case as exercised 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 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any s "for which such person could be tried together with the accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022 , referring to Hardeep Singh Bench has given a caution that power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-12692-2025 CRM-M-16850 9. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Karim & Anr. 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1160 319 Cr.P.C held that: “It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be routinely and the existence of more than a prima non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial Court must evaluate the evidence against the p such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 be invoked.” 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the above (Annexure P-8) the present petition stands dismissed. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 in/and 16850-2025 Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Karim & Anr. 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1160 319 Cr.P.C held that: “It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be routinely and the existence of more than a prima non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial Court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 be invoked.” In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the above-mentioned impugned order dated passed by learned Additional Sessions present petition stands dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 6 Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Juhru & Ors. Versus Karim & Anr. 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1160 observing the scope ofsection “It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima-facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial Court must evaluate the evidence ersons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to impugned order dated 29.05.2024 Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Hence, HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment