The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused requires strong evidence and should be exercised judiciously, not casually.

JUDGMENT :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Leave granted. By way of extraordinary indulgence to the respondents, we have taken up the matter(s) de novo. The instant Judgment be, therefore, read and contextualised in conjunction with our Order dated 19.03.2025.

2. learned counsel and learned senior counsel for the parties.

3. The present appeals are directed against the Impugned Order dated 18.07.2024 [2024 SCC OnLine P&H 11673] passed by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by which summons issued under Section 319¹[‘319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence .—(1) 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 for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then—

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re- heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.’] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) by the learned Trial Court against the private respondents in connection with First Information Report No.50 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’) registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab were set aside.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr Jitesh Malik, submits that the appellant is the complainant/informant and his brother had died. It was submitted that in the FIR itself, all the respondents/accused were identified ‘in the light of the car’²[We take it that this means that the identity of the accused was discernible to the appellant-complainant despite it being 8.30pm in the night.] and it was a brutal murder where the deceased was pulled out from the car and then done to death. Learned counsel submitted that the issuance of summons was on the basis of the tentative view formed by the Trial Court, being that of likely involvement of the private respondents in the crime and ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court at such a preliminary stage, especially when the Trial Court had found sufficient material to summon the private respondents/accused. Prayer was made to allow the appeals.

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

5. Per contra, the private respondents led by Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel, submit that the instant is not a fit case where this Court should interfere. It was contended that power to summon a person as accused under Section 319 of the Code, though exists on the statute- book but is to be sparingly used and under very fitting circumstances. It was submitted that the Courts have consistently held that the test would be higher than at the stage of framing of charge and just short of holding a person guilty of the charge. It was submitted that in the present case, as per the allegation in the FIR itself, 24 persons had come on three different vehicles, which, to begin with, was highly improbable and impractical. Further, it was submitted that the complainant’s initial version is that he along with the deceased were travelling in the car, whereas in his deposition before the Court, it is stated that three persons were travelling in the car i.e., PW1 (who i