The court ruled that summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires establishing more than a prima facie case, emphasizing a need for substantial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Quashing of revision order - The petitioner sought to quash the Sessions Judge's order, asserting the lower court failed to consider sufficient evidence regarding the involvement of additional accused in the assault - The petitioner highlighted the erroneous findings regarding complicity, leading to the revision being allowed - A prima facie standard is emphasized for summoning additional accused, necessitating more than mere probability of their guilt. (Paras 5-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was attacked by multiple assailants during a Panchayat meeting intended to resolve a quarrel. The FIR was subsequently filed recording injuries inflicted by specific accused during the incident. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the trial court to summon additional accused. The revision against this decision resulted in its setting aside.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires a stronger standard of evidence than mere probability and dismissed the petition for setting aside the revision order, affirming the responsibility of the trial court to evaluate evidence substantively before summoning additional accused.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the learned Sessions Judge exercised revisional powers appropriately concerning the application to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that when summoning additional accused, there must be more than a prima facie case established, cautioning against routine invocation of such power without substantial evidence.

Result: The present petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and events leading to the fir. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the validity of evidence and revisional powers. (Para 3 , 4)
3. standards for exercising power under section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. rejection of the petition and affirmation of the lower court's order. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, is for quashing the order dated 12.11.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide which the revision petition filed by respondents No.2 and 3 has been allowed and the well reasoned order dated 08.05.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot in FIR No.16 dated 05.02.2022 registered under Sections 452 , 323, 148, 149 IPC ( Sections 148 and 149 IPC deleted later on and Section 34 IPC has been added) at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot, has been set-aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2022, a quarrel occurred between the petitioner and Arshdeep Singh. On 30.01.2022, a Panchayat was convened at the complainant’s house to resolve the matter. During the discussion, the complainant suggested calling Arshdeep Singh to facilitate the compromise, which led to the accused persons, including Jaspal Singh, Ravi, Lovely, Raj Kumar, Amritpal Singh @ Sunny (respondent No. 3), and Reetu (respondent No.2), using abusive language. When the Panchayat members asked them to leave, they became aggressive and attacked the complainant. At around 8:15 AM, Jaspal Singh, Ravi, Lovely, Reetu (respondent No.2), Amritpal Singh @ Sunny (respondent No.3), and Raj Kumar entered the complainant’s house, armed with sticks, kirch, and baseball bats. They attacked the complainant. Jaspal Singh hit the complainant on the head, followed by Ravi hitting him on the cheeks with a kirch. Lovely attacked him on the finger with a baseball bat, and while the complainant was lying on the floor, Reetu hit him on the leg, and Amritpal Singh @ Sunny kicked him. When the Complainant raised an alarm, the Panchayat members intervened, and the attackers fled with their respective weapons. The complainant was later admitted to the Civil Hospital, Kotkapura, and a medical report was prepared and thereafter, the FIR No.16 dated 05.02.2022 was registered against the six accused under Sections 452 , 323, 34 IPC. Later on during the pendency of the examination-in-chief of PW-2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 as an additional accused, was moved by the learned Public Prosecutor, and the same was allowed by the learned trial Court on 08.05.2023, however, pursuance to the revision petition preferred against the same, the said order dated 08.05.2023 was set-aside and the learned trial Court was directed to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant approached this Court vide CRMM No.3194 of 2024, which was allowed and the order dated 23.11.2023, has been set-aside with a direction to the learned Revisional Court to pass fresh orders and thereafter, the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024, allowed the revision petition preferred against the order dated 08.05.2023. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his revisional power without adverting to the factual matrix of the case and erroneous findings have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, to the extent that it has been observed in the impugned order that the respondent – Amritpal Singh @ Sunny has not inflicted any injury and in fact, a categoric narration in the FIR (supra) is mentioned to the extent that the aforementioned respondent has inflicted injury on the leg of the complainant and as such, the learned Revisional Court ought to have not allowed the revision petition filed by the private respondents and further the Deputy Sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document