S. 319 CrPC | Merely Naming Accused Not Sufficient For Summoning Order, Evidence Must Satisfy "More Than Prima Facie Case": P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the summoning order against accused persons in a murder case observing that merely because the petitioners had been named by the complainant, the power to proceed against them under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised. Court said in such cases the test of "more than prima facie case" must be satisfied.Under Section 319 CrPC, where, in the course...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed the summoning order against accused persons in a murder case observing that merely because the petitioners had been named by the complainant, the power to proceed against them under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised. Court said in such cases the test of "more than prima facie case" must be satisfied.
Under Section 319 CrPC, 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 person.
While quashing the summoning order against the petitioners, Justice Pankaj Jain said, "Thus, merely for the reason that the petitioners have been named by the complainant, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record satisfies 'test of more than prima facie case'."
The Court was hearing a plea challenging the application filed under Section 319 CrPC by the prosecution and summoning the petitioners as additional accused in an FIR lodged in 2015 about a murder case under Sections 365 and 342 of IPC (Sections 364-A, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC), at Fazilka, Punjab.
Considering the submissions and documents on record, the Court noted that the petitioners were exculpated by the investigating agency during the investigation after observing that, "no sufficient evidence was found" against them.
The allegation against the proposed accused i.e. the petitioners was only a bald allegation that they were also involved in the commission of offence without attributing any role to them, the Court observed.
Reliance was placed upon Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, [2014], in which the Court held that "once an accused has been discharged, the procedure for enquiry envisaged under Section 398 Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented by prescribing to procedure under Section 319 Cr.P.C."
Observing that merely for the reason that the petitioners have been named by the complainant, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record satisfies 'test of more than prima facie case', the Court set aside the summoning order.
Appearance: Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.7.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 22
Title: Geeta Devi and another v. State of Punjab and another