Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harnam Singh Dhumma @ Baba Harnam Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 6 August, 2026
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
151 CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 6th August, 2026
Harnam Singh Dhumma @ Baba Harnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Raunaq Singh Aulakh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order
dated 25.05.2026, passed by the learned trial Court in case arising out of FIR
No. 47 dated 18.05.2016, registered under Sections 302, 307, 427, 212, 216,
120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 at Police Station PAU, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, whereby the
petitioner Harnam Singh Dhumma @ Baba Harnam Singh has been
summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section
358 BNSS) to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the
statement recorded by complainant Kulwinder Singh, who was employed as
the personal driver of Baba Ranjit Singh (Dhadrianwale), alleging therein that
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -2-
on 18.05.2016 at about 5:45 PM, he, along with Baba Ranjit Singh
(Dhadrianwale), Baba Bhupinder Singh and sewadar Harinder Singh, left Shri
Parmeshwar Dwar, Patiala, for village Isewal, District Ludhiana to participate
in a Gurmat Samagam. They were travelling in a Toyota Land Cruiser bearing
registration No. “PUT-1”. The complainant was driving the vehicle. Baba
Bhupinder Singh was seated on the front passenger seat, Baba Ranjit Singh
(Dhadrianwale) was seated on the rear seat behind the front passenger, while
Sewadar Harinder Singh was seated behind the driver. The Land Cruiser was
following another vehicle, i.e. a Toyota Fortuner bearing registration No.
PB-12-Q-0090, which was being driven by Bhai Jasvir Singh and in which
four to five other persons were travelling. These two vehicles were further
followed by a Mahindra Scorpio and a Toyota Innova, carrying other
members accompanying Baba Ranjit Singh.
3. As further alleged, at about 7:45 PM, when the caravan reached
near the Barewal Canal Bridge, where a Chhabil (sweet water offering) had
been installed, certain persons stopped the Toyota Fortuner and, on the pretext
of serving sweet water, enquired as to in which vehicle Baba Ranjit Singh was
travelling. Immediately thereafter, about 30 to 40 persons sprayed some
substance on the windshields of the vehicles so that the occupants could not
see outside. The assailants thereafter attacked the vehicles with rods, gandasis
and baseball bats, smashed the window panes, blocked the cavalcade by
parking their own vehicles in front of and behind it, and also opened
indiscriminate fire. One of the bullets struck Baba Bhupinder Singh on the
head, causing him to fall over the complainant. The firing also damaged the
tyres of the Land Cruiser. Despite the attack, the complainant managed to
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -3-
drive the vehicle for about three to four kilometres, while Baba Ranjit Singh
ducked down inside the vehicle to save himself. It was further alleged that the
assailants continued to chase them in two to three vehicles. After the tyres
became completely deflated, the occupants abandoned the vehicle and ran
towards a nearby Delhi Public School for safety. However, Baba Bhupinder
Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. On the same day, the complainant Kulwinder Singh recorded his
statement to the effect that he could identify the assailants and took names of
Gagandeep Singh, Jaspreet Singh, Hardev Singh and Manjit Singh as some of
the assailants. He recorded his supplementary statement on 24.05.2026 and
took names of some more persons who too were arrested. After completion of
necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in the
Court.
5. As revealed from the record, an application under Section 193
read with Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant after
presentation of challan for issuing process against the present petitioner,
Jaspal Singh Sidhu, Mehar Singh and Harbhajan Singh, by alleging that Jaspal
Singh Sidhu and Harbhajan Singh were present at the time of occurrence and
they signalled the vehicle of the complainant as well as other vehicles to stop,
whereas the vehicle used by the assailants at the time of occurrence was
registered in the name of the petitioner, who was the main conspirator and on
whose instigation, the subject crime had been committed as he was having
enmity with Baba Ranjit Singh. The arm license of co-accused Mehar Singh
was recovered from the vehicle registered in the name of the petitioner.
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -4-
However, the complainant subsequently withdrew the prayer qua Jaspal Singh
Sidhu. Vide order dated 30.01.2018, the application was partly allowed and
Mehar Sigh and Harbhajan Singh were ordered to be summoned as accused,
whereas the prayer for summoning the present petitioner was declined.
6. As further revealed from the record, on presentation of
supplementary challan against some other accused and recording statements
of the witnesses, an application had been filed by the complainant/prosecution
for summoning Jaspal Singh @ Sidhu as additional accused. This application
was allowed, vide order dated 12.07.2022 and said Jaspal Singh Sidhu was
ordered to be summoned to face trial along with accused already arraigned.
Thereafter, on 30.03.2026, another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the complainant for summoning the present petitioner as additional
accused. Vide impugned order dated 25.05.2026, the learned trial Court has
allowed the said application and has summoned the petitioner as an additional
accused to face trial along with the accused already arraigned. Feeling
aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been filed by him.
7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the
same, the learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind. A cryptic order
has been passed. The fact that previously an application filed under Section
193 read with Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the complainant/prosecution claiming
the same relief had been dismissed qua the petitioner and that the said order
has become final, was not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.
The learned trial Court did not pay heed to the fact that in the second
application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., no prayer whatsoever had been
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -5-
made by the prosecution/complainant for summoning the present petitioner,
though the said application had also been filed after recording statements of
material witnesses. It is argued that the third application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. had been filed by the complainant/prosecution only to abuse the
process of law and as such it cannot be stated to be maintainable at all. It is,
thus, argued that neither the presence of the petitioner at the spot of
occurrence was alleged nor was it established nor any other material was
collected to connect him with the commission of subject offences.
8. It is further argued that the petitioner is the Head of Damdami
Taksal and the aforesaid vehicle was not the only vehicle but there are other
vehicles belonging to Damdami Taksal, which are registered in the name of
the petitioner and only because of involvement of one of such vehicles, the
petitioner could not be connected with the subject crime. The fact that he was
not named in the FIR and his name came up only in the supplementary
statement of the complainant recorded after a period about one and a half
months, had also not been taken into consideration. The role attributed to him
is only of hatching conspiracy but there is nothing on record to show as to
how the petitioner orchestrated the incident. No such proof in the form of
evidence has been produced. No new aspect or evidence has been produced on
record to that extent. The statements of the witnesses are reiteration of the
allegations as recorded in their previous statements during the course of
investigation, which had already been considered. The subsequent application
filed by the complainant, being bereft of any new material on record, was also
hit by the principles of res judicata and on this account, it was not
maintainable. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -6-
deserves to be allowed and the impugned order, being not sustainable in the
eyes of law, is liable to be set aside.
9. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner.
10. At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under:-
“319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence. – (1) Where, in the
course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears
from the evidence that any person not being the accused
has committed any offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed
against such person for the offence which he appears to
have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending
the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the
circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose
aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not
under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such
Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the
offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where
the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section
(1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person
shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses reheard; (b)
subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may
proceed as if such person had been an accused person
when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which
the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
11. Having noted the abovementioned provision, it is amply clear
that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect that in the course of an
inquiry into, or trial of an offence, based on the evidence tendered before the
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -7-
Court, if it appears to the Court that such evidence points to any person other
than the accused who are being tried before the Court, to have committed any
offence and such accused has been excluded in the charge sheet or in the
process of trial till such time, could still be summoned and tried together with
the accused, for the offence which appears to have been committed by such
persons summoned as additional accused.
12. The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section
319 of Cr.P.C. had arisen for detailed consideration in Hardeep Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein the scope, procedure and the stage at
which such power was to be exercised was considered and summarized. It was
observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is discretionary and an extraordinary power. It has to be exercised sparingly
and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, is of the
opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence.
Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the
material placed before the Court that such power should be exercised and not
in a casual and cavalier manner. It was also observed that though only a prima
facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not
necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much strong
evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be
applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been established at
the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -8-
satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319
of Cr.P.C.
13. The legal position on the scope and ambit of powers of the Court
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has also been summarized by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case cited as Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and others,
(2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 321, wherein it was observed as under:-
“(i) That while exercising the powers under section 319
CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the
entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an
offence to get away unpunished.
(ii) For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the
criminal administration of justice works properly.
(iii) The law has been properly codified and modified by
the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts
should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the
innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the
guilty are brought to book under the law.
(iv) To discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth
and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished.
(v) Where the investigating agency for any reason does not
array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not
powerless in calling the said accused to face trial.
(vi) Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against
any person who is not an accused in a case before it.
(vii) The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is
cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will
be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with
the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not
uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by
manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting
agency.
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -9-
(viii) Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision
empowering the court to take appropriate steps for
proceeding against any person not being an accused for
also having committed the offence under trial.
(ix) The power under section 319(1) CrPC can be
exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and
before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the
stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is
only a pretrial stage intended to put the process into
motion.
(x) The court can exercise the power under section 319
CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the
recording of the evidence.
(xi) The word “evidence” in section 319 CrPC means only
such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to
statements, and as produced before the court, in relation to
documents.
(xii) It is only such evidence that can be taken into account
by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power
under section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the
basis of material collected during the investigation.
(xiii) If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis
of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can
exercise the power under section 319 CrPC and can
proceed against such other person(s).
(xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the
basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief,
powers under section 319 CrPC can be exercised.
(xv) That power under section 319 CrPC can be exercised
even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief
and the court need not to wait till the said evidence is
tested on cross-examination.
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -10-
(xvi) Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity
to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the
trial court to summon other persons as well who were
named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has
gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by
virtue of section 319 CrPC and even those persons named
in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be
summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some
evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (may be in
the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution
witnesses).
(xvii) While exercising the powers under section 319 CrPC
the Court is not required and/or justified in appreciating
the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on
merits which is required to be done during the trial.”
14. On applying the aforementioned proposition of law to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that the
main thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that since an application filed under Section 193 read with Section 319
Cr.P.C. by the complainant/prosecution for summoning the petitioner and co-
accused had been dismissed qua the petitioner and since in another application
filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., no prayer was made for summoning the
present petitioner as an additional accused, hence, the application in which the
impugned order has been passed is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
However, this Court is not persuaded with the same because so far as the
provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. are concerned, any application filed under
that section cannot be stated to be having any bearing on an application filed
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per Section 193 Cr.P.C., the Court of Sessions
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -11-
can take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction only on
committal of a sessions triable case to it by a Magistrate.
15. In the present case, only after committal of the case to the trial
Court by the Magistrate concerned, an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
had been filed and prayer was made for taking cognizance and summoning the
petitioner and some other persons as accused. At the cost of repetition, it may
be mentioned that the said application had been dismissed as mentioned
above. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, any finding as given
by the learned trial Court while passing the said order cannot be stated to be
either having any bearing on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at
a subsequent stage due to the reason that the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
are totally different and are invoked at any stage of trial when some evidence
has come on record and it appears that from the same that any person, not
being accused, has committed any offence for which such person can be tried
together with the accused already arraigned. As such, an application filed
under Section 193 Cr.P.C. at the stage of taking cognizance cannot be equated
with an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. simply because of the fact that
the said application was shown to have been filed under Section 193 read with
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and any finding given therein will be having no
bearing on the same not it can be stated that the order given in application
under Section 193 Cr.P.C. would operate as res judicata.
16. Further, so far as the plea of the application filed under Section
319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Jaspal Singh as additional accused is concerned,
no doubt no prayer had been made at that stage by the
complainant/prosecution for summoning the present petitioner as accused.
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -12-
However, due to that reason, it cannot be held that the complainant or the
prosecution could not move any application at subsequent stage for
summoning the petitioner as additional accused. For all intent and purposes,
the application filed by the complainant/prosecution under Section 319
Cr.P.C. would be considered as first application after recording of evidence
for summoning the petitioner as additional accused. Therefore, it cannot be
stated that since an application filed against the co-accused making similar
prayer had been disposed of previously, the complainant/prosecution was
barred from moving any application under the same provision against the
petitioner. As such, the plea so taken by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
17. Moreso, on a prima facie appraisal of the material available on
record, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence indicating the
involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences.
Although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, he was specifically
named in the subsequent statement of the complainant and was attributed the
role of being the main conspirator who had allegedly orchestrated the
occurrence on account of his enmity with Baba Ranjit Singh. The evidence led
before the trial Court further indicates that the vehicle allegedly used in the
commission of the crime was registered in the petitioner’s name and the arms
licence of a co-accused was recovered therefrom. The statements of the
prosecution witnesses recorded during trial also support the prosecution
version regarding the petitioner’s role in the conspiracy. At this stage, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the material on record is
sufficient to prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged
against the petitioner, warranting his being summoned to face trial.
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-37410-2026 (O&M) -13-
18. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers. Hence, finding no merit in the
petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
6th August, 2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Parveen Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PARVEEN SHARMA
2026.08.06 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
