CRM-M-24185- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (127) SUSHIL AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for respondent No.2 *** MANISHA BATRA, CRM-18848-2026 1. Application is allowed, as prayed for. CRM-M-24185- 1. The instant petition 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, quashing of order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal in case arising out of FIR No.145 dated 26.03.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal whereby the application filed by the prosecution/complainant for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused had been allowed as well as order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Court -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : SUSHIL AND OTHERS Versus HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for respondent No.2 *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 2026 Application is allowed, as prayed for. -2026 The instant petition has been filed by of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, quashing of order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal in case arising out of FIR No.145 dated 26.03.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC at Police tion Pundri, District Kaithal whereby the application filed by the prosecution/complainant for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused had been allowed as well as order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24185-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.05.2026 ... Petitioners ...Respondents HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA dvocate for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for respondent No.2 Application is allowed, as prayed for. has been filed by the petitioners under Section of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for quashing of order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal in case arising out of FIR No.145 dated 26.03.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC at Police tion Pundri, District Kaithal whereby the application filed by the prosecution/complainant for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused had been allowed as well as order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Court under Section 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for quashing of order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal in case arising out of FIR No.145 dated 26.03.2018 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 of IPC at Police tion Pundri, District Kaithal whereby the application filed by the prosecution/complainant for summoning the present petitioners as additional accused had been allowed as well as order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Court AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- of Learned Additional Sessions Jud whereby the revision dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 25.03.2018, the complainant Vijay P members had gone to his agricultural land. While on the way back to home at about 04:00 PM, he was intercepted by the present petitioners and the co accused already arraigned, who were found sitting on both sides of the road. When he crossed through them, they proclaimed that they would kill him, if he did not withdraw the case filed against them in Kaithal Court. On hearing so and apprehending danger, the complainant tried to flee by running from the spot but he was encircled by opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with axe which hit his finger. The petitioner No.2 struck blow with iron rod on his left leg, whereas petitioner No.3 gave blows with stick on his right kicked and punched him. The co injuries. He raised alarm and was rescued by his family members, who reached at the spot. While leaving the spot, the petitioners and the co extended threats to kill him. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petitioners were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and challaned. Challan was only presented against accused Mahend Rakesh. -2026 (O&M) 2 of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in CRR No.1640 of 2026, revision petition filed against the order dated 12.03.2026 had been Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 25.03.2018, the complainant Vijay P members had gone to his agricultural land. While on the way back to home at about 04:00 PM, he was intercepted by the present petitioners and the co accused already arraigned, who were found sitting on both sides of the road. he crossed through them, they proclaimed that they would kill him, if he did not withdraw the case filed against them in Kaithal Court. On hearing so and apprehending danger, the complainant tried to flee by running from the spot but he was encircled by the assailants from all the sides. The petitioner No.1 opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with axe which hit his finger. The petitioner No.2 struck blow with iron rod on his left leg, whereas petitioner No.3 gave blows with stick on his right arm. The petitioners No.4 and 5 had kicked and punched him. The co-accused already arraigned had also caused injuries. He raised alarm and was rescued by his family members, who reached at the spot. While leaving the spot, the petitioners and the co extended threats to kill him. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petitioners were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and . Challan was only presented against accused Mahend ge, Kaithal in CRR No.1640 of 2026, petition filed against the order dated 12.03.2026 had been Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that on 25.03.2018, the complainant Vijay Pal alongwith his family members had gone to his agricultural land. While on the way back to home at about 04:00 PM, he was intercepted by the present petitioners and the co- accused already arraigned, who were found sitting on both sides of the road. he crossed through them, they proclaimed that they would kill him, if he did not withdraw the case filed against them in Kaithal Court. On hearing so and apprehending danger, the complainant tried to flee by running from the spot the assailants from all the sides. The petitioner No.1 opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with axe which hit his finger. The petitioner No.2 struck blow with iron rod on his left leg, whereas petitioner arm. The petitioners No.4 and 5 had accused already arraigned had also caused injuries. He raised alarm and was rescued by his family members, who reached at the spot. While leaving the spot, the petitioners and the co-accused had After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petitioners were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and . Challan was only presented against accused Mahender Singh and ge, Kaithal in CRR No.1640 of 2026, petition filed against the order dated 12.03.2026 had been Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this al alongwith his family members had gone to his agricultural land. While on the way back to home at - accused already arraigned, who were found sitting on both sides of the road. he crossed through them, they proclaimed that they would kill him, if he did not withdraw the case filed against them in Kaithal Court. On hearing so and apprehending danger, the complainant tried to flee by running from the spot the assailants from all the sides. The petitioner No.1 opened an assault upon him by striking a blow with axe which hit his finger. The petitioner No.2 struck blow with iron rod on his left leg, whereas petitioner arm. The petitioners No.4 and 5 had accused already arraigned had also caused injuries. He raised alarm and was rescued by his family members, who reached cused had After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The present petitioners were found to be innocent and had not been arrested and er Singh and AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- 4. After recording of testimony of the complainant, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2026 as already mentioned and the revision petition filed against that order has also been dismissed. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of Magistrate and the Revisional Court ignored th investigation had been conducted in the matter and the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of subject offences had not been established at all and that is why their names were kept in column No.2 of the challan report and they had not been arrested and challaned. It is further argued that there was ample material on record to show that the petitioner Airforce personnel and were performing their duties at their respective places of postings which are far away from the place of occurrence and were not present at the spot at the relevant time. The fact that the testimony of was nothing but the complainant the FIR, had also been ignored. It is argued that the testimony of the complainant has been wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court. There was no prima facie evidence on record to prove the involvemen subject offences. The evidence so led on record did not raise any probability of their complicity in the crime. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is lia -2026 (O&M) 3 After recording of testimony of the complainant, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2026 as already mentioned and the tion filed against that order has also been dismissed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same Magistrate and the Revisional Court ignored th investigation had been conducted in the matter and the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of subject offences had not been established at all and that is why their names were kept in column No.2 of the challan report and they had not been arrested and challaned. It is further argued that there was ample material on record to show that the petitioner Airforce personnel and were performing their duties at their respective places of which are far away from the place of occurrence and were not present at the spot at the relevant time. The fact that the testimony of mere reiteration of the allegations in the statement recorded by before the police previously which culminated into lodging of the FIR, had also been ignored. It is argued that the testimony of the complainant has been wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court. There was no evidence on record to prove the involvemen subject offences. The evidence so led on record did not raise any probability of their complicity in the crime. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, t After recording of testimony of the complainant, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2026 as already mentioned and the tion filed against that order has also been dismissed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned law as while passing the same the Trial Magistrate and the Revisional Court ignored the fact that a thorough investigation had been conducted in the matter and the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of subject offences had not been established at all and that is why their names were kept in column No.2 of the challan report and they had not been arrested and challaned. It is further argued that there was ample material on record to show that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are Army and Airforce personnel and were performing their duties at their respective places of which are far away from the place of occurrence and were not present at the spot at the relevant time. The fact that the testimony of the complainant mere reiteration of the allegations in the statement recorded by the police previously which culminated into lodging of the FIR, had also been ignored. It is argued that the testimony of the complainant has been wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court. There was no evidence on record to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the subject offences. The evidence so led on record did not raise any probability of their complicity in the crime. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the ble to be set aside, the application filed by the After recording of testimony of the complainant, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Learned Trial Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2026 as already mentioned and the It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned the Trial e fact that a thorough investigation had been conducted in the matter and the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of subject offences had not been established at all and that is why their names were kept in column No.2 of the challan report and they had not been arrested and challaned. It is further argued that there was and 2 are Army and Airforce personnel and were performing their duties at their respective places of which are far away from the place of occurrence and were not present the complainant mere reiteration of the allegations in the statement recorded by the police previously which culminated into lodging of the FIR, had also been ignored. It is argued that the testimony of the complainant has been wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court. There was no t of the petitioners in the subject offences. The evidence so led on record did not raise any probability of their complicity in the crime. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the by the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- prosecution/complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is liable to be dismissed and further the present petition deserves to be allowed. To f learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Surinder Kumar V. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2689030 6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 in the orders passed hence it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment passed by the 2024 decided on 06.04.2024 Punjab and Another, decided on 12.08.2025 of Punjab and Another 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. BNSS, empowers th but against whom there appears during trial involvement in the offence, as an accused other accused. The principle of law under this Section has been well -2026 (O&M) 4 prosecution/complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is liable to be dismissed and further the present petition deserves to be allowed. To f learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Surinder Kumar V. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2689030 Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the respondent No.2, has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court and hence it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.1891 of 2024 decided on 06.04.2024 in case titled as Punjab and Another, judgment passed by this Court in decided on 12.08.2025 in case titled as Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs. State and Another. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which is pari materia empowers the Court to add any person, not but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his t in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with r accused. The principle of law with reference to exercise of jurisdiction nder this Section has been well settled by the Constitution Bench of Hon’bl prosecution/complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is liable to be dismissed and further the present petition deserves to be allowed. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Surinder Kumar V. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity by the Learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court and hence it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the in SLP (Criminal) No.1891 of titled as Harjinder Singh Vs. State of judgment passed by this Court in CRR-1236-2024 Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs. State This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel pari materia with Section 348 of e Court to add any person, not being the accused before it, sufficient evidence indicating his and direct him to be tried along with with reference to exercise of jurisdiction settled by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble prosecution/complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is liable to be dismissed his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by this Surinder Kumar V. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity by the Learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court and hence it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the in SLP (Criminal) No.1891 of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of 2024 Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs. State This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel with Section 348 of accused before it, sufficient evidence indicating his and direct him to be tried along with with reference to exercise of jurisdiction e AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- Supreme Court in a celebrated others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, observed that the powers strong and cogent before the Court. evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on examination but complicity of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. 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 that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power 319 of Cr.P.C. 9. It is also well settled proposition of law that if the prosecution at any stage produces evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings been quashed, have als against them and try them along with the other accused. It must Court from the evidence tendered in the course of any enquiry person not being the accused has committed tried together with the accused even though he might not sheeted by the investigating agency or may have been stage. In the present case, at the time of lodging of -2026 (O&M) 5 Supreme Court in a celebrated pronouncement cited as others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, observed that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the material placed before the Court. Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the before the Court, not necessarily tested on it also requires much strong evidence than mere probability of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. The test be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been stablished at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power It is also well settled proposition of law that if the prosecution at any stage produces evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings been quashed, have also committed the offence, the Court can take against them and try them along with the other accused. It must Court from the evidence tendered in the course of any enquiry person not being the accused has committed any offence for tried together with the accused even though he might not sheeted by the investigating agency or may have been stage. In the present case, at the time of lodging of pronouncement cited as Hardeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was ion 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised where evidence occurs against a person from the material placed Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross- it also requires much strong evidence than mere probability of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. The test be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been stablished 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 It is also well settled proposition of law that if the prosecution at any stage produces evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have o committed the offence, the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. It must appear to the Court from the evidence tendered in the course of any enquiry or trial that any any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused even though he might not have been charge- sheeted by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage. In the present case, at the time of lodging of the FIR itself, the Hardeep Singh and wherein it was ion 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised where evidence occurs against a person from the material placed Though only a prima facie case is to be established from the - it also requires much strong evidence than mere probability of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. The test be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been extent absence of under Section It is also well settled proposition of law that if the prosecution at or have cognizance appear to the or trial that any which he could be - discharged at an earlier the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- complainant had not only named the present petitioner specific overt acts to accused had opened an assault and caused injuries to h 10. The petitioners No.1 and 2 have placed on record Annexure P photocopy of a certificate issued by the Office of Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Dockyards, Delhi, where petitioner No.1 25.03.2018, showing that he remained present March, 2018. They have also placed on record a photocopy of a certificate issued by the Flight Lieutenant, Stn Adit 56 ASP AF, showing that petitioner No.2-Harkesh remained present in the Unit from 25.03.2018 to 27.03.2018. the strength of these documents, both the petitioners have claimed that they were not present at the place of occurrence, as they were posted at Delhi and Roorkee respectively on the date of the alleged incident However, Annexure P7 is a copy of an inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to Inspector General of Police, Karnal. This document had been received by the complainant Vijay Pal under the provisions of the RTI Act. As per this report, No.1 and 2 were showing their locations at the place of occurrence as on the relevant date i.e. 25.03.2018. As per this report, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had got prepared false certificates regarding their pre of duties. 11. The main thrust of the argument as raised by the petitioners is that since these two petition -2026 (O&M) 6 complainant had not only named the present petitioner specific overt acts to them by alleging that the petitioner accused had opened an assault and caused injuries to h The petitioners No.1 and 2 have placed on record Annexure P a certificate issued by the Office of Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Dockyards, Delhi, where petitioner No.1 25.03.2018, showing that he remained present in the Unit during the month of March, 2018. They have also placed on record a photocopy of a certificate issued by the Flight Lieutenant, Stn Adit 56 ASP AF, showing that petitioner Harkesh remained present in the Unit from 25.03.2018 to 27.03.2018. the strength of these documents, both the petitioners have claimed that they were not present at the place of occurrence, as they were posted at Delhi and Roorkee respectively on the date of the alleged incident and were performing duty there. , Annexure P7 is a copy of an inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to Inspector General of Police, Karnal. This document had been received by the complainant Vijay Pal under the provisions of the RTI Act. As per this report, the cellphone numbers used by the petitioner No.1 and 2 were showing their locations at the place of occurrence as on the relevant date i.e. 25.03.2018. As per this report, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had got prepared false certificates regarding their pre The main thrust of the argument as raised by the petitioners is that since these two petitioners were performing their duties at their respective places complainant had not only named the present petitioners but had also attributed by alleging that the petitioners along with the co- accused had opened an assault and caused injuries to him. The petitioners No.1 and 2 have placed on record Annexure P-8, a certificate issued by the Office of Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Dockyards, Delhi, where petitioner No.1-Sushil was posted on in the Unit during the month of March, 2018. They have also placed on record a photocopy of a certificate issued by the Flight Lieutenant, Stn Adit 56 ASP AF, showing that petitioner Harkesh remained present in the Unit from 25.03.2018 to 27.03.2018. On the strength of these documents, both the petitioners have claimed that they were not present at the place of occurrence, as they were posted at Delhi and Roorkee and were performing duty there. , Annexure P7 is a copy of an inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to Inspector General of Police, Karnal. This document had been received by the complainant Vijay Pal under the provisions the cellphone numbers used by the petitioner No.1 and 2 were showing their locations at the place of occurrence as on the relevant date i.e. 25.03.2018. As per this report, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had got prepared false certificates regarding their presence on their respective places The main thrust of the argument as raised by the petitioners is that s were performing their duties at their respective places had also attributed - 8, a certificate issued by the Office of Ministry of Defence, Sushil was posted on in the Unit during the month of March, 2018. They have also placed on record a photocopy of a certificate issued by the Flight Lieutenant, Stn Adit 56 ASP AF, showing that petitioner On the strength of these documents, both the petitioners have claimed that they were not present at the place of occurrence, as they were posted at Delhi and Roorkee and were performing duty there. , Annexure P7 is a copy of an inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to Inspector General of Police, Karnal. This document had been received by the complainant Vijay Pal under the provisions the cellphone numbers used by the petitioner No.1 and 2 were showing their locations at the place of occurrence as on the relevant date i.e. 25.03.2018. As per this report, the petitioners No.1 and 2 had sence on their respective places The main thrust of the argument as raised by the petitioners is that s were performing their duties at their respective places AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- of posting on 25.03.2018, therefore, there were no c the spot and hence they could not have been summoned as accused. The well settled proposition of law is that an alibi is the burden to establish it rests on the accused. However, such plea treated to be a conclusive at the threshold as well as defence has to lead full evidence. Reliance in placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh’s case (supra) placed upon Harbhajan Singh’s case (supra) had taken specific plea of alibi, whereas, the case of the prosecution was based on eye-witnessed account alibi raised by the accused can be verified only on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the veracity as to the version o their not being present at the spot to be produced during trial and not at this stage. The petitioners were not only named as the accused in the FIR but specific overt acts, roles and weapons had been attributed to them. word “evidence” in Section 319 of Cr.P.C. relation to the statements, and as produced before the Court, in r documents. It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the -2026 (O&M) 7 of posting on 25.03.2018, therefore, there were no c the spot and hence they could not have been summoned as accused. The well on of law is that an alibi is plea in the nature of an evidence and the burden to establish it rests on the accused. However, such plea treated to be a conclusive at the threshold and for that purpose, the prosecution as well as defence has to lead full evidence. Reliance in the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), wherein it was observed so. Reliance can further be Harbhajan Singh’s case (supra), had taken specific plea of alibi, whereas, the case of the prosecution was based witnessed account. It was observed that the truthfulness of the plea of alibi raised by the accused can be verified only on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the veracity as to the version of the petitioners their not being present at the spot, can be tested only on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial and not at this stage. The petitioners were not only named as the accused in the FIR but specific overt acts, roles and weapons had been attributed to them. In Hardeep Singh’s case (Supra) word “evidence” as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and as mentioned of Cr.P.C., means such evidence as is made before the Court, in the statements, and as produced before the Court, in r is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the of posting on 25.03.2018, therefore, there were no chances of their presence at the spot and hence they could not have been summoned as accused. The well plea in the nature of an evidence and the burden to establish it rests on the accused. However, such plea cannot be and for that purpose, the prosecution as well as defence has to lead full evidence. Reliance in this regard can be the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjinder wherein it was observed so. Reliance can further be , wherein the proposed accused had taken specific plea of alibi, whereas, the case of the prosecution was based ed that the truthfulness of the plea of alibi raised by the accused can be verified only on appreciation of the evidence In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered f the petitioners No.1 and 2 as to can be tested only on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial and not at this stage. The petitioners were not only named as the accused in the FIR but specific overt acts, roles and weapons had ase (Supra), it was observed that as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and as mentioned means such evidence as is made before the Court, in the statements, and as produced before the Court, in relation to is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the hances of their presence at the spot and hence they could not have been summoned as accused. The well plea in the nature of an evidence and cannot be and for that purpose, the prosecution this regard can be Harjinder wherein it was observed so. Reliance can further be wherein the proposed accused had taken specific plea of alibi, whereas, the case of the prosecution was based ed that the truthfulness of the plea of alibi raised by the accused can be verified only on appreciation of the evidence In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered as to can be tested only on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial and not at this stage. The petitioners were not only named as the accused in the FIR but specific overt acts, roles and weapons had , it was observed that as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and as mentioned means such evidence as is made before the Court, in elation to is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24185- Magistrate or the be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 56 was observed that the question whether evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible are matters to be seen at the trial as there is full opportunity to the additional accused irrelevant and admissible or inadmissible. The prosecution cannot be from bringing to the Court such other evidence against additional persons which can be proved as legally admissible evidence. the testimony of PW1 Vijay Pal Learned Trial Court while exercising power revealed that he categorically deposed in support of the version as given at the time of lodging of the FIR. be leading to merely prima facie case. Rather than prima facie evidence. evidence had passed th an additional accused to face t irregularity or illegality can be stated to have been comm trial Court by doing so. As suc conclusion. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed 26.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 8 Magistrate or the Court to decide whether power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. In ngh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 56 observed that the question whether evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible are matters to be seen at the trial as there is full opportunity to the additional accused to object to the evidence as relevant or irrelevant and admissible or inadmissible. The prosecution cannot be from bringing to the Court such other evidence against additional persons which can be proved as legally admissible evidence. the testimony of PW1 Vijay Pal-complainant, which has been relied upon by the Learned Trial Court while exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. it is revealed that he categorically deposed in support of the version as given at the me of lodging of the FIR. The evidence led by this witness cannot be said to ding to merely prima facie case. Rather, it can be considered to be more than prima facie evidence. The learned trial Court by considering the evidence had passed the impugned order thereby summoning the an additional accused to face trial along with the co irregularity or illegality can be stated to have been comm trial Court by doing so. As such, this Court finds conclusion. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No Court to decide whether power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. In ngh Khaira v. State of Punjab, 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 56, it observed that the question whether evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible are matters to be seen at the trial as there is full to object to the evidence as relevant or irrelevant and admissible or inadmissible. The prosecution cannot be forbidden from bringing to the Court such other evidence against additional accused persons which can be proved as legally admissible evidence. On going through complainant, which has been relied upon by the under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. it is revealed that he categorically deposed in support of the version as given at the The evidence led by this witness cannot be said to , it can be considered to be more trial Court by considering the said ned order thereby summoning the petitioners as rial along with the co-accused. No perversity, irregularity or illegality can be stated to have been committed by the learned finds no reason to come to a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Yes/No Court to decide whether power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to and not on the basis of material collected during investigation. In , it observed that the question whether evidence is relevant, irrelevant, admissible or inadmissible are matters to be seen at the trial as there is full to object to the evidence as relevant or forbidden accused On going through complainant, which has been relied upon by the under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. it is revealed that he categorically deposed in support of the version as given at the The evidence led by this witness cannot be said to , it can be considered to be more said as No perversity, by the learned contrary AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.