Surender Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another

CRR-2063-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.120 CRR-2063-2025 Decided on : 23.04.2026 Surender Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present : Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner-complainant has preferred the instant revision petition against the order dated 22.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, vide which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C./ Section 358 BNSS, filed by the prosecution/complainant for summoning of Respondent no.2-Nitin as additional accused has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court has wrongly misinterpreted the entire evidence on record and erred in dismissing the abovesaid application. He further submits that the trial Court totally failed to consider that there are specific allegations against

CRR-2063-2025 2 Respondent no.2 in the FIR as well as in the statement given by the complainant before the trial Court and he has played an active role in the crime. He further submits that bare perusal of the evidence clearly shows that respondent no.2-Nitin actively participated in the crime with common intention and caused injuries to the complainant, therefore he is liable to be summoned to face trial. Hence he prays that the present petition be allowed; the impugned order be quashed and Respondent no.2-Nitin may kindly be summoned to face trial as additional accused.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4.

In the present case, the petitioner-complainant moved a complaint to the police, but the respondent no.2 was neither given any specific role nor any specific injury and only general allegations were imputed upon him. Further, mere statement of the complainant, which is not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the discretionary and extraordinary power of this Court to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C./ Section 358 BNSS. In the absence of any material suggesting existence of more than prima facie case available during the course of trial of an offence, the Courts ought to refrain themselves from exercising its discretionary and extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C./Section 358 BNSS. The Constitution

CRR-2063-2025 3 Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, SC 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623; speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, observed the following: "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 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 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 crossexamination, 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 satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In

CRR-2063-2025 4 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 accused. "

5.

Subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.7373 of 2021), referring to Hardeep Singh (supra) made the following observations:

"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 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."

CRR-2063-2025 5 6.

Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Juhru & Ors.

v.

Karim &Anr.

AIR (Supreme Court) 1160 observing the scope of section 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 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 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 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked." 7.

Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C./Section 358 BNSS is a discretionary and extraordinary power which is to be exercised sparingly and

CRR-2063-2025 6 only on the basis of the credible material available before the Court during the trial, which is missing in the present case. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that the investigation was conducted up to higher officials and no incriminating material was found against Respondent no.2Nitin and the petitioner-complainant failed to led any other incriminating material against the respondent no.2-Nitin. 8.

In view of the discussion made above and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order and as such the present petition, being bereft of any merit is dismissed. 23.04.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No