Power Under Section 319 CrPC Is Extraordinary and Must Be Exercised Cautiously, But Cannot Be Withheld Where Strong Prima Facie Case: P&H High Court Upholds Summoning of Additional Accused

"Abetment Need Not Be Overt – Continued Mental and Physical Harassment Creating Circumstances for Suicide Satisfies Section 306 IPC" - On 1st October 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for abetting the suicide of the complainant's brother. The Court dismissed the criminal revision, ruling that the material on record, including a suicide note and corroborative testimony, met the stricter threshold required under Section 319 CrPC.

Justice Subhas Mehla held that when strong and cogent evidence appears on record during trial, the Court is not powerless to summon an individual not initially arrayed as an accused, provided the evidence indicates active participation or a proximate link with the offence.

The Court reiterated that “Power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, but where the degree of satisfaction is met, the Court is duty-bound to act.”

"Suicide Note Not a Mere Dying Declaration, But a Record of Persistent Harassment – Sufficient to Attract Section 306 IPC"

The case stemmed from FIR No. 641 dated 05.12.2019, registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC at Police Station Meham, Rohtak, based on a complaint filed by the deceased’s brother, Pardeep. The petitioner, Aman, was not named in the original chargesheet but was summoned later under Section 319 CrPC after the complainant, examined as PW-1, named him during trial.

According to the complainant’s testimony and a suicide note left by the deceased, Aman was allegedly involved in an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife and subjected the deceased to continuous mental and physical harassment, including repeated beatings. It was this sustained conduct, not merely the discovery of an affair, that allegedly drove the victim to suicide by consuming poison in his fields.

The High Court observed: “The present case is not simply a case of husband committing suicide after discovering that his wife was having an extra-marital affair. The suicide note narrates multiple incidents of physical assault and active harassment by the petitioner. These are not stray allegations but are corroborated in evidence.”

The Court found that the cumulative acts described created a proximate link between the petitioner’s conduct and the suicide, thus satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.

"Threshold for Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Mere Suspicion – But Need Not Amount to Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt"

Delving into the scope and limits of Section 319 CrPC, the Court re-affirmed the jurisprudence laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92], Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1009], and Shankar v. State of UP [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 345].

Justice Mehla summarised the position thus:

“The power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and discretionary. It must be used sparingly, but where the evidence, though not tested through cross-examination, is strong and if unrebutted may result in conviction, the Court must act.”

The Court emphasised that the use of the word "appears" in Section 319 CrPC indicates that absolute certainty is not needed, but there must be strong prima facie evidence that could lead to conviction if left unrebutted.

The Court cited the binding observations in Sukhpal Singh Khaira, directing trial courts to pause proceedings, apply judicial mind, and then proceed with summoning if warranted.

"Active Harassment and Mental Trauma Inflicted By Petitioner Distinguishes This Case from Cited Precedents"

The petitioner’s counsel had placed heavy reliance on recent Supreme Court decisions in Mahendra Aware v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 (4) SCC 801], Prakash v. State of Maharashtra [2025 CriLR (SC) 603], and Jayedeepsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat [2025 (2) GLR 1448] to argue that there were no direct acts of instigation or intent linking the petitioner to the suicide.

However, the High Court distinguished all three precedents, holding: “In those cases, the connection to suicide was either speculative or indirect. Here, both the suicide note and oral testimony consistently point towards deliberate harassment by the petitioner. This goes beyond suspicion or conjecture.”

Further, the Court relied on the ruling in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] to reiterate that no fixed formula can determine abetment and that each case must be analysed on its own facts, particularly in sensitive matters of suicide where human psychology and societal dynamics intertwine.

"No Manifest Perversity or Illegality in Trial Court Order – Revisional Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Appellate Scrutiny"

Rejecting the petitioner’s prayer to quash the summoning order, the High Court invoked the principle laid down in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460], stating:

“Revisional powers are not to be used lightly. Unless the findings are perverse or the order suffers from manifest illegality or results in miscarriage of justice, interference is not warranted.”

Justice Mehla found that the trial court’s exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC was within the bounds of law, based on reliable material on record, and the degree of satisfaction required under the statute was rightly met.

The Court concluded: “In view of the above discussion, the Trial Court is justified to summon the petitioner to face trial along with co-accused. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.”

The criminal revision was accordingly dismissed, paving the way for the petitioner to stand trial along with other accused for abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 34 IPC.

This ruling reinforces that Section 319 CrPC is not merely procedural but a critical tool to ensure that all culpable persons face trial, even if not named in the initial charge sheet. However, it must be anchored in credible and cogent evidence, and not used casually. The judgment underscores the constitutional balance between protecting personal liberty and ensuring accountability in criminal law.

Date of Decision: 01.10.2025