SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 83480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J
Surinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-12091-2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhinav Gupta
For the Respondents: Neeraj Madaan

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused is an extraordinary discretionary power that must be exercised sparingly, requiring strong, cogent, and more-than-prima-facie evidence; it cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner merely on the basis of a witness statement.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary - To be exercised sparingly only where strong and cogent evidence exists - Threshold is higher than a mere prima facie case as at the stage of framing charges. (Paras 13)

(B) Summoning Order - Validity - Summoning order passed in a casual manner without evaluating evidence or assigning reasons for the complicity of the accused, and ignoring the threshold laid down by the Apex Court, attracts judicial interference. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the orders of the trial Court and Revisional Court summoning them as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a cross-version case arising from an FIR dated 03.02.2012. The complainant alleged that the petitioners were part of a group that attacked him and his family due to a pre-existing family dispute. The trial court summoned them based solely on the complainant's deposition during the trial.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that there was no strong and cogent evidence on record to justify the summoning of the petitioners. The summoning orders were passed in a mechanical manner without any discussion of evidence that would meet the threshold of "more than a prima facie case" as formulated in judicial precedents. The mere naming of persons in a deposition without specific acts or corroborative evidence does not warrant summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Issues: Whether the trial Court and the Revisional Court were justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and not in a casual or cavalier manner. The court must be satisfied that there is strong, cogent evidence indicating that the person has committed an offence, a threshold requiring more than a prima facie case. Applying these principles, the court found the impugned orders failed to satisfy these requirements.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading, cross-version status, and initial summoning orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner reliance on case laws to challenge summoning order legality. (Para 6 , 7)
3. assessment of evidence standard required for section 319 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. decision to set aside orders due to lack of evidence. (Para 14 , 15)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 23.09.2014 passed by learned JMIC, Jagraon (Annexure P-5) and judgment dated 04.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P-7), whereby petitioners have been summoned as additional accused No.5 to 9 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in cross case DDR dated 03.02.2012 arising out of FIR No.11 dated 03.02.2012, registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506 read with Section 149 IPC at Police Station Raikot, to face trial.

2. Exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 23.09.2014, Court of learned JMIC, Jagraon (trial Court) summoned the additional accused, namely, (i) Surinder Kumar, (ii) Raman Kumar, (iii) Manohar Lal @ Laddi, (iv) Gagan Singh, and (v) Shakti Kumar, in the cross-version case, registered as DDR No.32 dated 03.02.2012, arising from FIR No.11 dated 03.02.2012, under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Raikot (Jagraon), District Ludhiana.

On assailing the summoning order passed by the learned trial Court, Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Revisional Court), also maintained the said order. Hence, instant petition has been filed by the said summoned accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order(s).

3. For the occurrence of an incident on 02.02.2012, initially, petitioner party got registered the aforementioned FIR No.11 (supra) against respondent No.2 and other co-accused. Complaint in that regard was submitted by Sushil Kumar (son of petitioner No.1 – Surinder Kumar). During the course of investigation, respondent No.2 – Bharat Bhushan s/o Panni Lal got recorded a cross-version, which reads as under:-

“ Stated that, I am resident of above mentioned address and am running a Jewelry shop at Committee Bazar, Raikot. Yesterday dated 2.2.12, I on my motor cycle LML Freedom bearing No. PB-56A-4972 for the polishing of gold ornaments had gone to Kutba Bazar Raikot. But, due to close of the Polishing shop, I was coming toward my shop through Committee Bazar. When I was just passing in front of the shop of Sushil Kumar son of Surinder Kumar resident of Jalotian Raikot who is running Readymade Garment shop in Committee Bazar, who was standing out side his shop, then it was about 7.20 PM, that Sushil Kumar came in front of my motor cycle and encircled me, upon which I stopped my motor cycle and I told him that what is the matter, why you have encircled my motor cycle, then he started saying that you are gazing towards my father showing him eyes, today lesson is being taught to you. In the meantime, Rohit son of Vipan Kumar resident of Mohalla Jalotian Raikot whose sister is married to my younger brother Varinder Kumar, came from behind me, after sitting on my motor cycle, gave fist blow in my head and I along with my motor cycle fell in the bazaar. In the meantime, Sanjiv Verma and his brother Sonu sons of Chaman Lal, residents of Mohalla Jand Wala Raikot and Shakti son of Rakesh Kumar who is running Bakery shop in Committee Bazar came out of the shop of above mentioned Sushil Kumar and 4 other unknown persons, if come before me I could have identify them, also reached at the spot. Then, while I was lying on the ground, Sushil Kumar gave fist blow on my right eye and Sanjiv Verma gave kick blow of his boot on the backside my elbow of right arm and Sonu gave fist blows on my back side and Shakti gave kick blows in my head and while I was lying on the ground, unknown persons gave me fist and kick blows continuousl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top