Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J
Ramwati – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-47-2024(O&M)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.C. Shahpuri
For the Respondents: P.K. Jhanda, Divyansh Shukla, R.K. Choudhary

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused must be exercised if there is a strong prima facie case; at this stage, the court should not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence but rely on the sufficiency of material, such as consistent eyewitness testimony.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 358 - Summoning of additional accused - Prima facie case - Trial court dismissed application to summon additional accused despite eye-witness testimony naming the individual and police disclosure statement - High Court held that at the stage of Section 319, court is not required to perform mini-trial or appreciate merits but to see if a strong prima facie case exists - Sworn testimony of eye-witness holds greater weight at this stage than police disclosure statements. (Paras 13, 14)

(B) Joint vs. Separate Trial - Power to summon additional accused - Court clarified that when additional accused is summoned after partial trial, court has discretion to hold separate trial to avoid prejudice or delay, as per guidelines in Constitution Bench decision. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, mother of the deceased, challenged the trial court's dismissal of her application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon one individual as an additional accused. The complainant had specifically identified this individual in the FIR and in her witness testimony as being present and armed at the scene. The individual had been placed in column no. 2 of the final report by the police after favorable inquiries from villagers.

Findings of Court:
The High Court set aside the order of the trial court, noting that the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the testimony of the eyewitness identifying the accused, supplemented by the existence of a disclosure statement linking the accused, constitutes sufficient material to summon him.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on conflicting investigation reports and police disclosure statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The threshold for summoning an additional accused is a prima facie case; the court must not appreciate evidence or perform a mini-trial at this stage. Sworn, credible eyewitness testimony overrides police-prepared disclosure statements or internal inquiries clearing the suspect.

Result: Revision petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to the application under section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. contentions regarding the failure of trial court to exercise summoning powers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. legal thresholds for exercising section 319 cr.p.c. and relevance of eyewitness testimony versus disclosure statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. final order granting the petition and directing the trial court to proceed. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

1.	Date when Order was reserved	08.05.2026
2.	Pronouncement of Order	25.05.2026
3.	Date of uploading Order	26.05.2026
4.	Whether operative part or full Order is pronounced	Full
5.	Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full order, and reasons thereof	Not Applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for

Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

CRM-1254-2024

i) Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

ii) For the reasons enumerated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 136 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is hereby condoned.

iii) Application stands disposed of.

CRR-47-2024(O&M)

1. Petitioner, Ramwati, aged 72 years, has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. Trial Court”), whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 of BNSS) by the petitioner for summoning an additional accused, namely Lalit s/o Sunder, was dismissed.

2. On the statement of complainant-Ramwati, the following was recorded in the FIR:

“I Ramwati wife of Sher Singh, Caste Jat, am resident of Janacholi. I have two sons and one daughter. My husband Sher Singh had gone to Haridwar for the purpose of Kawar. My elder son Sunil is in Army and has come on leave and had gone to meet relatives. I and my younger son Anil Kumar were present at home. I was busy in house chores and my son Anil Kumar was lying in the courtyard on cot. Yesterday i.e. 27.07.2019 at about 7:00, three armed persons came by running and after reaching they fired about 20-25 shots upon my son Anil Kumar. The fire struck on the body of Anil Kumar and smeared with blood and they went back while firing. Out of them, one boy Mandhak @ Om Parkash s/o Tej Pal, caste Jat, Village Janacholi to whom I have recognized. With whom two other boys were there and who were carrying weapons in their hands and while came running and reached my son Anil Kumar and they started firing upon Anil Kumar and while going away one boy told his name as Ankit Pandit resident of Dhamka and one another boy was standing at the door of my house to whom also I have recognized whose name is Lálit s/o Sunder, resident of Janacholi. All the four boys after firing went in a white colour vehicle which was parked near the school. My son Anil Kumar was taken to the hospital by my other family members namely Pappu @ Kamal s/o Hari Chand, Ashok Kumar son of Hari Singh and Ashok Kumar and Ghwasi Ram in their car. This incident has occurred within a short span of time and this incident has been witnessed by me. My son Anil Kumar has been declared dead by the doctors. Mandhak @ Om Parkash s/o Tej Pal, resident of Janacholi, Ankit Pandit resident of Dhamka along with other companion have committed the murder of my son Anil Kumar, whose name I do not know and these persons have committed the murder with their respective vehicle Lalit son of Sunder resident of Janacholi have also committed the murder of my son while standing on the gate of my house by watching. After registration of the case against these persons, a strict legal action be taken against them. Yesterday on 27.07.2019, I was not in a position t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSanjay Vashisth, JRamwati – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCRR-47-2024(O&M)

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused must be exercised if there is a strong prima facie case; at this stage, the court should not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence but rely on the sufficiency of material, such as consistent eyewitness testimony.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J
Ramwati – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRR-47-2024(O&M)