Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Sudesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-2512-2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Goswami
For the Respondents: Viney Phogat, DPS Bajwa

The power under Section 358 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 319 Cr.P.C.) to summon additional accused is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, requiring strong, cogent, and admissible evidence that establishes a high probability of conviction, beyond mere suspicion or hearsay.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 358 - Corresponding to Section 319 of Cr.P.C. - Power to summon additional accused - Scope - Held, such power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly - Must be based on strong and cogent evidence rather than mere suspicion or hearsay - Requirement is more than a prima-facie case - Must show a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought to summon persons not arrayed as accused in the FIR, based on her statement as a complainant before the court, alleging they were involved in the assault that led to the death of her son. The Police investigation and a subsequent check by CIA Hansi found no involvement of these individuals. The Trial Court dismissed the application, noting the lack of evidence and the absence of specific overt acts attributed to the proposed accused.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner's statement was self-serving, uncorroborated by other evidence, and based on hearsay. The Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application, as the testimony failed to meet the high burden required for invoking powers to add accused persons to criminal proceedings.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 358 BNSS to summon private respondents as additional accused based on the complainant’s testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to summon additional accused is significant and discretionary, to be used only when there is high probability of conviction supported by cogent evidence; mere suspicion, hearsay, or repetition of FIR allegations without corroboration is insufficient to warrant such action.

Result: Petition dismissed.

*******

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind in FIR No.131 dated 09.10.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 127(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Alewa whereby the application of the petitioner/complainant under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 ( Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) for summoning the private respondents as additional accused has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned FIR No.131 dated 09.10.2024 under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 127(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 Police Station Alewa came to be registered at the instance of Sudesh W/o late Kartar Singh and the same reads as under:-

Statement of Sudesh wife of Late Kartar Singh caste Jat r/o Pegan, age 44 years Mobile No. 7357726993, Stated that I am a resident of the above address. I am a widow. My husband died about three and a half months ago due to heart failure. I have 6 children. Five girls and one boy. The eldest daughter is Sonia, younger than her is Monia, younger than her is Bunty, younger than her is Joniya, younger than her is Tantu, the youngest is Mannu. The three elder girls are married and the boy and the two younger girls are unmarried. On 06.10.2024, my son Bunty went to sleep in the Gher/enclosure after having dinner in the evening. On waking up in the morning, Bunty's motorcycle was found parked in front of the Gher/enclosure and Bunty was found kidnapped from in front of the Gher/enclosure and my brother-in-law Jasbir son of Ramkuwar Jat resident of Pegan received a call on his mobile number 99968-35951 from Salendra son of Rajpal resident of Pegan from his mobile number 98126-55786 at around 05.02 AM that your nephew Bunty son of Kartar has been beaten up inside house of Sandeep alias Shinda son of Raghubir resident of Pegha and he has been taken to Alewa by the dial 112, Bunty was taken from Alewa and he was referred to the Government Hospital, Jind. We then reached the Government Hospital, Jind. We found Bunty on a stretcher in the new building with Manjeet, son of Raghubir. We asked Manjeet what had happened to Bunty. Manjeet said that we the entire family collectively had beaten him up badly. After this, he ran away. Bunty was then brought to Jindal Hospital, Hisar. We have confirmed that Manjeet, son of Raghubir Jagbir son of Bharthu, Gurmel son of Shamsher, Sumit son of Wazir, Vinay, son of Darshan, Sandeep's wife, Mahavir's wife, Darshan's wife, Gurmel's wife, Jagbir's wife, residents of Pega, and wife of Randhir, had kidnapped and held him captive. Wazir son of Bharthu, and wife of Wazir, by kidnapping and captive, assaulted him with the intent to kill. Apart from this, 5-7 others were also involved in causing injuries. Legal action should be taken against them. The statement has been written, I have heard it and understood it, it is correct. SD-RTI Sudesh.”

On an investigation being conducted Manjeet Singh S/o Raghbir Singh, Jagbir S/o Bharthu alias Bharat Singh and Gurmel Singh S/o Shamsher Singh were found to be the accused. The remaining persons named as accused were placed in column No.2 when the challan was submitted in Court.

During the course of the Trial, the statement of Sudesh (complainant) was recorded as PW1. She reiterated the contents of the FIR. An application was moved to summon those persons who had been found to be innocent as additional accused. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind.

It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) contends that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the conjectures and surmises. Manjeet (accused) categorically disclosed to the complainant and others that he and his entire family had beaten up the deceased. This statement would am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHJasjit Singh Bedi, JSudesh – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCRR-2512-2025

The power under Section 358 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 319 Cr.P.C.) to summon additional accused is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, requiring strong, cogent, and admissible evidence that establishes a high probability of conviction, beyond mere suspicion or hearsay.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
Sudesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-2512-2025