IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Ankush .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Ajay Vijrania, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant/prosecution seeking summoning of private respondents namely Saroj, Parmila, Monika, Aman, Sumit, Ankit, Ravi and Gaurav, as additional accused to face trial along with already challaned accused, has been dismissed in case FIR No.452 dated 04.08.2022 under Sections 148, 149, 216, 302, 365, 364, 120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is perverse and contrary to the settled legal principles governing the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to discuss the scope and legal principles governing Section 319 of the Cr.P.C./358 of the BNSS. Section 358 of the BNSS empowers the learned Trial Court to summon a person not originally named as an accused if, during the course of trial, evidence emerges indicating his/their complicity in the offence. However, this power is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only in compelling circumstances. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has, in a catena of decisions including Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (Constitution Bench) : 2014(3) SCC 92 laid down strict parameters for the exercise of this jurisdiction.

3. The key principles enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court are as follows:-

(a) The standard of evidence required for summoning an additional accused under Section 358 of the BNSS is higher than required at the stage of framing of charge but lower than the threshold for conviction. The test is whether the evidence, if left unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(b) The Court must be cautious in invoking the provisions of Section 358 of the BNSS, ensuring that the power is not misused to unnecessarily drag individuals in a criminal trial based on vague or uncorroborated allegations.

(c) Mere naming of a person in the FIR or their mention in the deposition of a witness during trial is not sufficient to invoke Section 358 of the BNSS unless there is substantive evidence demonstrating their active involvement in the commission of the crime.

(d) The presence of a person at the scene of crime, without a specific overtact attributed to him/her, is insufficient to invoke this provision.

4. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order has meticulously examined the material on record including the contents of the FIR as well as the examination in chief of the complainant who deposed as PW-1 and found that :

(i) the deposition of the complainant before the Court was a mere reiteration of his initial statement given to the police at the time of the registration of the FIR, lacking any additional incriminating material against the proposed accused;

(ii) the case of the prosecution itself is contradictory regarding the number of persons allegedly involved. While the FIR and evidence suggest that 18 to 20 persons emerged from two vehicles (Bolera Camper and a Ritz Car), the investigation by the police has already charge sheeted 17 accused. The inclusion of 08 additional accused would raise the total number of assailants to 25, which is highly improbable given the alleged mode of transport;

(iii) the complainant admitted that he had seen a video of the incident at the police station, wherein the persons visibly assaulting the victim were identified as Sachin, Sumit, Sonu, Mintu, Deepak, Sunil, Anil, Naveen, Pradeep and Ashish—all of whom are already facing trial. The proposed accused were not seen in the video, further weakening the cas