Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 18 February, 2026
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
121
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.02.2026
Mahender Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of order dated
25.07.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Hansi in case arising out of FIR No. 273 dated
03.05.2014, registered under Sections 379, 447, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police
Station Narnaud, District Hisar, whereby an application filed by respondent
No.2/complainant under Section 319 of the Code for summoning the
petitioner as an additional accused had been allowed, as well as for quashing
of order dated 08.01.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 25.07.2018 had been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -2-
written complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant Raghubir Singh on
24.04.2014 alleging therein that there was some dispute qua the partition of
land owned by him. His son Tirath Singh had filed applications for partition of
the said land before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Tehsil Hansi.
The partition had been allowed and Sanad Taqseem (partition deed) had been
got prepared. Warrant of possession were issued as per the orders of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate and possession of the property, which had fallen to the
share of the complainant/his son, had been given to them. He further alleged
that the petitioner and co-accused Partap Singh etc. were harassing the
complainant and were interfering in his peaceful possession over the land
which was in his lawful possession/ownership. On 21.04.2014 also, they had
extended threats to the complainant that they would not let him harvest his
crop and if he did so, then he would be killed. He also alleged that the
petitioner and co-accused Jagbir Singh were armed with pistols, whereas other
co-accused were having jellies and they had criminally intimidated the
complainant and his family, had harvested his crop forcibly and had taken
away the same with them. On these allegations, a case under Section 147, 149,
379, 447 and 506 of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were
initiated. During investigation, the petitioner and two more persons named in
the FIR i.e. Sunil and Raj Kumar were found to be innocent and their names
were ordered to be kept in Column No. 2 of the challan report, whereas other
accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was
presented against them.
3. As per the record, during the course of trial and after recording
of examination-in-chief of the complainant, an application under Section 319
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -3-
of the Code was moved by the complainant, which was allowed by the learned
trial Court, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2018, thereby summoning the
present petitioner as an additional accused and the said order was affirmed by
the learned revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2019.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and proper investigation was
conducted in the matter and it was found that he was neither present at the
spot of alleged incident nor any specific or overt act had been committed by
him. He was rightly found to be innocent and had not been challaned.
However, the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, did not
take into all these material facts into consideration and passed a non-speaking
and perverse order. It is further argued that even the learned revisional Court
did not apply its judicious mind and had dismissed the revision petition filed
by him by passing a non-speaking order. With these broad submissions, it is,
thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders
are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned State counsel has not raised any serious objection to the
petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has, however,
vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
orders. The petitioner was not only named in the FIR but his complicity and
active participation in commission of subject offences stood established from
the evidence produced on record in the form of testimony of the complainant,
which was sufficient in this regard. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is
devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -4-
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
8. At the outset, it would be proper to refer to the provisions of
Section 319 of the Code, 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.”
9. 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
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
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -5-
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.
10. The issue relating to the powers to be exercised under Section
319 of the Code 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 of
the Code 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 cross-
examination, 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 satisfaction, the Court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 of the Code.
11. The legal position on the scope and ambit of powers of the Court
under Section 319 of the Code has also been summarized by Hon’ble Apex
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -6-
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.
(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
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -7-
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.
(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
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -8-
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.”
12. On applying the aforementioned proposition of law to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not in dispute that
the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and was attributed a clear role
in the occurrence. The mere fact that during investigation, he was found
innocent and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, cannot be treated as
conclusive or binding on the Court. It is a settled position of law that the
opinion of the investigating agency is only tentative and the Court is not
denuded of its statutory powers to summon any person who appears, from the
evidence recorded during trial, to have committed an offence. In the present
case, during the course of trial, the complainant, while appearing as a
prosecution witness, categorically deposed about the presence and active
participation of the petitioner in the alleged incident. The testimony disclosed
specific allegations of intimidation, interference in possession and forcible
harvesting of the crop. Such evidence, recorded before the Court in
examination-in-chief, constituted “evidence” within the meaning of Section
319 of the Code and was sufficient to prima facie indicate the petitioner’s
complicity in the commission of the offences. The contention raised on behalf
of the petitioner that there is no specific or overt act attributed to him is
misconceived. At the stage of exercising power under Section 319 of the
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
CRM-M-6049-2019 (O&M) -9-
Code, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate or weigh the
evidence as would be done at the stage of final adjudication. What is required
is the existence of strong and cogent material emerging from the evidence on
record which goes beyond mere suspicion and indicates the involvement of
the person sought to be summoned. The deposition of the complainant
satisfies this threshold. The learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence
so produced had rightly summoned the petitioner as additional accused and
this Court sees no reason to come to a different conclusion. Accordingly,
finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.
18.02.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 19-02-2026 01:30:35 :::
