[S.319 CrPC] Power Of Summons Can't Be Used Simply Because Prosecution Believes Someone Else Might Be Guilty Of Offence: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that the power of summoning any person, not originally challaned or named as an accused, to the proceedings under Section 319 CrPC, cannot be used simply because the prosecution or complainant believes that someone else might also be guilty of the offence.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "It thus is abundantly clear that the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used simply because the prosecution/complainant believes that someone else might also be guilty of the offence. Rather, it should be based on strong and cogent evidence presented before the Court."

The Court said that the evidence collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the lodging of an FIR should establish more than just a prima facie case, meaning it should be stronger than a probability of a person's involvement but not reaching the level of certainty required for conviction.

"Importantly, a Court should refrain from exercising powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. if it is not satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to the conviction of the person, who is being sought to be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The object and purpose behind Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is to allow the inclusion of a person as an additional accused during trial but it definitely does not authorize the Court to form an opinion on the guilt of the accused," it added.

These observations were made while hearing a plea of a complainant, challenging the order by which an application moved by him for summoning private respondents, namely Nagar Singh and Gurjant Singh as additional accused to face trial under Section 302 of the IPC, was dismissed.

Facts in brief

As per allegations levelled in the FIR, deceased Jaswant Singh, who was the father of the peitioner-complainant, was residing with the latter. There existed a long-standing dispute between the petitioner-complainant and the deceased on one side and the private respondents i.e. his brother and his sons on the other side, who had allegedly been plotting for years to get the land of the deceased transferred in their names. Consequently, they harboured animosity towards the deceased. Even in the year 2008, an incident took place, wherein his nephew Baljit Singh had inflicted injuries upon the deceased. However, the matter was settled with the intervention of family members.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that while passing the impugned order, the Trial Court failed to take into account and appreciate that there were categoric allegations regarding the involvement of the private respondents in the crime in question, and their involvement had been spelt out by the complainant at the outset while lodging the FIR in question, as well.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to the landmark decision in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab [2014], wherein it was held that, "for summoning any person, not originally challaned or named as an accused, to the proceedings, can be done only if it appears from the evidence that he or she has committed the offence alleged. However, this power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the Court sparingly and only when circumstances of the case demand and not philanthropically."

Justice Kaul highlighted that, while deciding an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the role of the Court is limited to considering whether there is sufficient evidence to try the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused together with other accused, who already stand challaned, and not to determine their guilt.

The Court noted that in the present case, except for the statements made by the complainant and another witness raising suspicion qua the involvement of the private respondents in the murder of the deceased, there is no evidence on record to connect them with the crime in question.

It noted further that on a pointed query put to the counsel if there was any witness of last seen or any recovery of weapon of offence or even if there was any statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the complainant or any other witness qua the alleged involvement of the private respondents, she replied in the negative but she reiterated that in view of the strained relations, it could be clearly inferred and there was a strong suspicion that the private respondent were conspirators to the crime in question. 

"It may be worthwhile to observe that while the principle of strong suspicion might guide the framing of charges, however, summoning a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. requires a distinct legal approach; summoning under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. entails evaluation of newly presented evidence in Court, rather than merely basing a decision on the existing suspicions of the complainant," observed the judge.

The Court also pointed out that after the registration of the FIR in question, the investigating agency investigated into the role of both of these private respondents and they were thus, rightly exonerated by the investigating agency and not challaned along with accused Baljit Singh.

In light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara and Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 228

Click here to read/download the order