IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

107 CRR-2778-2019 Date of Decision: 23.02.2026

1. MATLOOB .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CRR-3443-2019

2. IMRANA .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms.Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present order shall dispose of the above noted two petitions being CRR-2778-2019 and CRR-3443-2019.

2. Both the present petitions have been filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C against order dated 21.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which application under Section 319 Cr.P.C filed by complainant has been allowed partly and Matloob and Imrana have been summoned as an additional accused to face trial in case bearing No. SC- 240 of 2018 arising out of FIR No. 105 dated 21.09.2017 under Section 4, 17 POCSO and Section 6 POCSO, 506 IPC (added later) registered at Police Station Women Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication in the present case are that:

“On 10.8.2018, mother of victim 'B' moved a complaint alleging that she has six children. Her younger daughter is around 15 years of age. Today i.e. 10.8.2018, her daughter informed her that xxxxxx @ xxxxx d/o xxxxxxx called her daughter to her house on the evening of 31.7.2018. There her brother xxxxx committed wrong act upon her. On the basis of this complaint, FIR under sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered.

Statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded in which she has reiterated that alongwith xxxxx, his brother-in- law xxxxxx, r/o Tejli also committed wrong act upon her and xxxxxxx threatened her with dire consequences and xxxx abetted the a commission of crime against her. Later on, section

6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 IPC were added.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that the summoning order was passed without sufficient material and that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the outcome of the investigation, wherein no incriminating material was found against the petitioner(s). It has further been argued that the summoning was based solely upon the statement of the victim recorded during trial, which allegedly did not inspire confidence.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 and submits that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner(s), therefore, the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction by summoning the petitioner as an additional accused.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

7. The scope and ambit of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stand authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 wherein it has been held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that required for framing of charge and the evidence must be such which, if left unrebutted, would reasonably lead to conviction.

8. Similar view has been reiterated in Michael Machado v. CBI, 2000 (3) SCC 262 and Suman v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 908, wherein it has been emphasized that mere suspicion or possibility of involvement is not sufficient for summoning a person as an additional accused.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vid State of U.P (2021) 12 SCC 608, has reiterated that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C should only be exercised when strong and cogent evidence is presented against a person and the test to be applied is one that is and the more than a prima facie case, as applied at the time of framing of charges.

10. Most recently, the Hon'ble S