Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) CRR-2836-2025 (O&M)
Manpreet Singh ....Petitioner.
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent.
WITH
(2) CRR-2977-2025 (O&M)
Rinku Kumar and others ....Petitioners.
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent.
***
1. Date when the judgment was reserved 22.04.2026
2. Date when the judgment is pronounced 28.04.2026
3. Date when the judgment is uploaded 28.04.2026
on the website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment
is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement Not applicable.
of full judgment, and reasons thereof.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
---
Argued by: Mr. Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRR-2836-2025).
Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CRR-2977-2025).
Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
None for the complainant.
****
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 2
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
By this common order, both the afore-mentioned petitions are
disposed of together as the same are preferred against, one and same order.
2. Petitioner-Manpreet Singh (in CRR-2836-2025) and petitioners
namely Rinku Kumar, Joni Kumar and Vikas Kumar (in CRR-2977-2025),
have been summoned vide order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, by exercising its power under Section 358 of
BNSS, 2023 (Section 319 Cr.P.C.).
Rinku son of the complainant-Om Parkash died on 14.12.2022,
while he was in his house. During investigation, Rinku, Joni and Vicky sons
of Bhura Ram and Manpreet Singh son of Lalu Ram were declared innocent,
while submitting final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which was presented
against one accused namely Pinki Rani (wife of deceased Rinku).
3. Counsel for the petitioners argued that first application regarding
investigation into the death of Rinku was moved by complainant-Om Parkash
on 02.03.2023, without naming any suspect therein. Another application was
submitted on 27.07.2023 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa,
mentioning therein that Pinki Rani (his daughter-in-law) and some other
people along with her, Manpreet Singh knows the whole story, which has
become the reason for death of his son and that it happened due to the
connivance of said people.
When no FIR was being registered, on filing of a direction
petition (CRM-M-46132-2023) for conducting fair and impartial inquiry with
regard to the death of Rinku and also for deciding of representation dated
27.07.2023, during the pendency of the petition, FIR No.210 dated
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 3
09.11.2023 under Section 302 IPC was registered against Pinki Rani at Police
Station Boha, District Mansa. Vide order dated 14.02.2024, direction petition
was disposed of, as no further cause of action survived.
4. Counsel argued that except of one accused Pinki Rani, no other
name was mentioned in the F.I.R. Counsel further submitted that it was only
during the appearance of complainant-Om Parkash as PW-1, when he
deposed first time regarding the names of all four petitioners herein. In his
evidence, the witness deposed that:-
“My neighbours stated that they had noticed my son upto
7 PM on that day and he was walking. My neighbours also told
me that on that day at about 6 PM, two persons with muffled
faces, had come to our house on Platina Motorcycle without
number and at that time, my son Rinku and his wife Pinki Rani
were quarrelling with each other and that Manpreet Singh son of
Lalu Ram, resident of Boha was also present there. Thereafter, I
along with my relative reached at Civil Hospital, Budhlada,
where I found that Pinki, Bhura Ram, Rinku (brother of Pinki
Rani), Jony and Vicky were present in the hospital and they were
talking with each other.”
Counsel referred whole of the examination-in-chief of PW-1 and
submitted that except of raising doubt due to the presence of the now
summoned accused in the hospital along with main accused Pinki Rani and
doubting chastity of his own daughter-in-law, there was neither any material
collected during investigation nor such evidence came on record, worth
summoning the petitioners.
Lastly, counsel took the Court to the Post-Mortem Examination
Report, wherein one injury on the right side of neck was noticed by the
doctor, which reads as under:-
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 4“6 cm x 1.5 cm brownish bruise on right side of neck starting
from ventral surface, on further dissection clotted blood seen in
subcutenous tissue, on further dissection NAD.”
Thus, counsel submitted that without there being any evidence,
petitioners have been summoned. Moreover, it is against the settled
proposition of law that before exercising power to summon any person as
additional accused, Court should satisfy more than the requirement of
satisfaction at the time of framing of charges. Thus, counsel prayed for setting
aside of the impugned order.
5. None appeared on behalf of the complainant. However, learned
State counsel submitted that the naming of the petitioners as accused now first
time in Court is sufficient to suspect their involvement. While defending the
impugned order, learned State counsel submitted that the reason of doubt
having been expressed by the complainant/witness (PW-1) is such that at the
time of evidence, Court need to peep into the allegations and reason of death
of the deceased. However, learned State counsel admits before this Court that
during the course of investigation, no material could be collected against the
petitioners, who have been now summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus,
learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.
6. I have considered the submissions addressed by respective
counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
7. Undoubtedly, death had taken place on 14.12.2022 and for a
period of about two and a half months, no complaint was moved by the
complainant naming anyone as accused, doubting the reason of death of his
son because of committing of murder by someone. In the first application
dated 02.03.2023, no name was mentioned of any suspect. In the second
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 5
application dated 27.07.2023, it was mentioned that his daughter-in-law
informed him at about 1 AM (midnight) in Rajasthan at night that his son has
died. Except mentioning that his daughter-in-law and other people along with
her, Manpreet Singh knows the whole story behind the death of his son, no
other substantial allegation was raised by the complainant against any of the
accused. It has been noticed from application dated 27.07.2023 that
complainant had mentioned therein that “After the death of my son, some
people had admitted my son to the hospital at Budhlada and his Post-Mortem
was also conducted. The Post-Mortem Report confirmed that my son died due
to giving him a poisonous substance, but my daughter-in-law has shown that
my son had a heart attack while admitting my son, which clearly shows that
my son’s death was caused by giving him a poisonous substance in
connivance with my daughter-in-law and her friends.”
8. While presenting final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it has
been concluded and then recorded as under:-
“After receiving the approval, a case under Section 302 IPC was
registered against Pinky Rani, widow of Rinku resident of Ward No.4,
Boha, and the investigation record was completed accordingly. The case
file, along with the original complaint and the inquiry report, has been
retained with me for further investigation. Special reports have been
prepared and are being sent through Constable Gursewak Singh No. 1501/
Mansa to the senior officers and the area magistrate concerned. PCR
Mansa has also been informed through wireless message (W/M).
Thereafter, on 10.11.2023, I, along with fellow officials, proceeded in
search of the accused Pinky Rani to village Kalotha, but she was not found
present there. Later, upon receiving secret information, a raid was
conducted at the house of the accused in Boha, where Pinky Rani was found
present. She was interrogated and formally arrested in accordance with
law. The grounds of arrest and the intimation memo to her family were duly
completed. A site inspection was conducted, and a site plan was prepared.
Thereafter, her personal search was carried out. The accused Pinky RaniJITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 6
was then placed under the supervision of Lady Constable Gurpinder Kaur
and confined in the women’s lockup of the police station. During
interrogation, the accused Pinky Rani confessed that On 14.12.2022, my
husband went to work as a labourer for some landlord (whose name I do
not know). He brought home a bottle of pesticide (spray) from the landlord’s
field. When I saw it, I got the idea to kill my husband. I mixed that pesticide
into his food. My husband had consumed liquor, so he did not notice the
taste. After eating the food, he went to sleep in another room. When he
became motionless, I admitted him to the Civil Hospital, Budhlada, where
the doctor declared him dead. To destroy evidence, I disposed of the
pesticide bottle. Based on this confession and evidence, an additional
offence under Section 201 IPC was added to the existing case. The accused
Pinky Rani was produced before the Hon’ble Court on 11.11.2023, where
she was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days and sent to District Jail,
Mansa. Up to this stage, sufficient evidence has been gathered against the
accused Pinky Rani to prosecute her under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Therefore, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been prepared and is
being submitted against her before the Hon’ble Court. Witnesses will be
summoned to give evidence through court summons. It is requested that the
accused be awarded appropriate punishment according to law. Details of
witnesses and case documents enclosed.
Sd/-
Station House Officer,
Police Station Boha
Dated 25.11.2023.”
9. While examining the complete record including statement of
PW-1 (complainant), this Court is unable to see any material to establish
presence of petitioners in the house of the deceased at the relevant time during
night on 14.12.2022. Even this Court does not find the reason to uphold the
impugned summoning order because nothing has been discussed regarding
the investigation having been conducted if any from the neighbours of the
complainant, who had intimated him about some persons, entering into the
house during the fateful evening.
10. On perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 03.10.2025
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 7
passed by the trial Court, none of the aforesaid aspects are found to be noticed
while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
11. In this regard, in the case of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 200 : Law Finder Doc Id # 139303, the Apex
Court observed as under:-
“A glance at these provisions would suggest that during the trial it has
to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has
committed any offence for which such person could be tried together
with the accused who are also being tried. The key words in this Section
are “it appears from the evidence”….”any person”….”has committed any
offence”. It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have
mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material
against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Criminal
Procedure Code would be used by the court. This is apart from the fact
that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a
person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the
trial is already going on. This Court has, time and again, declared that
the discretion under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code has to be
exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned
court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person.
This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the
evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after the legal evidence comes
on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person
has committed an offence. The words “it appears” are not to be read
lightly. In that the court would have to be circumspect while exercising
this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of
the Section demands.”
In the landmark judgment, i.e., Hardeep Singh v. State of
PUnjab and others, 2014(3) SCC 92 : Law Finder Doc Id # 514451, of the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, observed as under:-
“98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised
because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that someJITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 8other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where
strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence
led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner.
99. Thus, we hold 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 stronger evidence
than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is
one which is more than prima facie case as exercised 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 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if it
appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such person
could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not ‘for
which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for
the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the
guilt of the accused.”
Further, the Apex Court in Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan, 2017(3) RCR (Criminal) 374 : Law Finder Doc Id # 851765,
observed as under:-
“15. This record was before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same,
the trial court went by the deposition of complainant and some other
persons in their examination-in-chief, with no other material to support
their so-called verbal/ocular version. Thus, the ‘evidence’ recorded
during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already
there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of
the case. No doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its
power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in
examination-in- chief. However, in a case like the present where
plethora of evidence was collected by the IO during investigation which
suggested otherwise, the trial court was at least duty bound to look into
the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether
‘much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants)
complicity has come on record. There is no satisfaction of this nature.
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 9Even if we presume that the trial court was not apprised of the same at
the time when it passed the order (as the appellants were not on the
scene at that time), what is more troubling is that even when this
material on record was specifically brought to the notice of the High
Court in the Revision Petition filed by the appellants, the High Court too
blissfully ignored the said material. Except reproducing the discussion
contained in the order of the trial court and expressing agreement
therewith, nothing more has been done. Such orders cannot stand
judicial scrutiny.”
In Juhru & Ors v. Karim & Anr., 2023 AIR (SC) 1160 : Law
Finder Doc Id # 2134545, the Apex Court observed as under:-
“17. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited
decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 is
not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima
facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may
hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to
summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in
conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the
procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person
at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court
must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned
and then adjudge whether such material is, more or less, carry the same
weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already
facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 ought not to be invoked.”
Lastly, the Apex Court in N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector
of Police & Ors., [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).8696 of 2021,
D.O.D.:16.02.2024], observed as under:-
“10. In our considered view, the approach adopted by the High Court
was not in consonance with this Court’s opinion in Hardeep Singh
(Supra). The High Court failed to appreciate that the discretionary
powers under Section 319 of the CrPC ought to have been used
sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant. In the present
case, the Trial Court Order was well reasoned and did not suffer from
any perversity. Moreover, the materials on record could not be said toJITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
CRR-2836, 2977-2025 (O&M) 10have satisfied the threshold envisaged under Hardeep Singh (Supra) i.e.,
more than a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of
charge but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to
conviction.”
As discussed here-above, this Court does not find any substance
on record, nor from the evidence led by complainant (PW-1), to meet the
threshold required under the spirit of the judgment in Hardeep Singh‘s case
(supra) and other judgments passed by the Apex Court.
In the absence of such material, this Court is constrained to hold
that mere deposition before the Court is not sufficient to put a person to face
the entire length of trial.
12. In view of all the aforementioned facts and law, and the
observations made and recorded by this Court, guided by the principles of law
laid down by the Apex Court, both these petitions are allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the trial Court
is hereby set aside.
Needless to mention here that the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
13. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
28.04.2026
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
JITENDER
2026.04.28 14:54
I attest to the accuracy of
this document