##PAGE1##

CRM-M-30234-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.201

CRM-M-30234-2025

Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

PARKASH SINGH ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present:- Mr. GBS Dhillon, Sr. Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Mr. Jaskirat Singh and

Mr. Abhimanyu Shastri, Advocates

for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482

Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner has been

summoned as an additional accused on an application under Section 358 of

BNSS (erstwhile Section 319 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.0107 dated 18.10.2019

registered under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station

Zira, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was specifically named in the FIR, however, during the course of

investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and was placed in Column

No.2. It is contended that in the statement made before the trial Court, no

ANU

2026.05.20 09:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-30234-2025 2

specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the only allegation

against him is that he was allegedly armed with a gandasi. Learned counsel

further submits that neither any overt act nor any exhortation has been

attributed to the petitioner and no injury allegedly caused by the petitioner

finds mention either in the medical evidence or in the ocular version. It is

further contended that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section

358 BNSS) is required to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where

strong and cogent evidence is available indicating the involvement of the

proposed accused to the extent that such evidence, if unrebutted, would

likely lead to conviction. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab,

2014(3) SCC 92, Sagar Versus State of U.P., 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 344

as well as judgments of this Court in Chander Singh Versus State of

Haryana, 2023(1) Law Herald 806 and Dheera Ram Versus State of

Haryana, 2023(4) RCR (Crl.) 526. Learned counsel submits that similarly

placed co-accused namely Sukhwinder Singh and Gurwinder Singh, against

whom also no specific injury was attributed, have already been granted relief

and the impugned summoning order dated 25.11.2024 has already been

quashed qua them by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while holding that

mere presence or general allegation without any specific role would not

satisfy the threshold required for summoning under Section 319

Cr.P.C./Section 358 BNSS.

3. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.2-complainant oppose the present petition and

ANU

2026.05.20 09:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-30234-2025 3

submit that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of the

evidence which had surfaced during the course of trial. It is contended that

the complainant while appearing before the learned trial Court specifically

reiterated the version given in the FIR and named the petitioner while

attributing his presence at the spot along with weapon. It is further submitted

that at the stage of exercising powers under Section 358 of BNSS (erstwhile

Section 319 Cr.P.C.), meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required and

the arguments sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner are matters to

be considered upon conclusion of trial after the entire evidence, including

defence evidence, is led before the learned trial Court. It is, thus, argued that

there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order and the

same does not warrant interference by this Cour