Power Under Section 319 CrPC Is Not a Tool to Reinforce FIR Narration:  Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Summoning of Additional Accused Requires More Than Mere Repetition of FIR Allegations” – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking the summoning of three private individuals who were named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted by the police.

Justice Sumeet Goel held that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is an extraordinary judicial power and must be exercised sparingly, only when the evidence on record reaches the threshold of near-certainty of guilt, not merely on probable suspicion or reiteration of FIR content.

The Court found that the testimony of the injured complainant (PW-1) added no fresh material beyond what was already stated in the FIR and investigated by police. Accordingly, the trial court’s refusal to summon the private respondents was upheld as legally justified and procedurally sound.

“Section 319 CrPC Is Not an Instrument to Validate Unsubstantiated Allegations” – Trial Court’s Judicial Restraint Applauded

The case stemmed from FIR No. 175 dated 17.07.2018, registered under Sections 323, 325, 326, 341, 367, 506 read with 34 IPC, based on a complaint by Vijay Kumar, the injured complainant, alleging that five persons, including respondents Baldev Singh, Vinod Kumar, and Naresh Kumar, assaulted him with weapons, inflicting injuries.

However, after investigation, the police placed the three private respondents in Column No. 2, indicating their exoneration, and proceeded to file a charge sheet against only three of the five named accused. During trial, the complainant stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the FIR allegations, assigning specific roles to the private respondents.

On this basis, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC, seeking to summon the three exonerated individuals as additional accused. The trial court dismissed the application, citing absence of new or compelling evidence, and held that mere reiteration of the FIR content by the complainant was insufficient to trigger the extraordinary power under Section 319.

The High Court agreed:

“In the considered opinion of this Court, no new or independent material has been brought on record which could justify the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”

“Standard of Proof for Summoning Must Be Higher Than Framing of Charges” – Court Applies Hardeep Singh Doctrine

Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, Justice Goel reiterated that the evidentiary threshold under Section 319 CrPC is distinct and higher than that required for framing charges.

“The Court must achieve a degree of satisfaction amounting to an assurance that evidence, if remaining unrebutted and uncontroverted, would ultimately culminate in the conviction of the individual proposed to be summoned.”

The Court observed that the complainant’s evidence was a verbatim repetition of the FIR, which had already been found insufficient by the police after investigation. The delay in filing the FIR – ten days after the alleged incident – further undermined the spontaneity and credibility of the allegations.

“The Court below further observed that there was considerable delay in lodging the FIR... which raised doubts regarding the veracity of the subsequent allegations against the proposed accused.”

“Exaggeration and Over-Implication Are Judicially Noticed Tendencies” – Caution Against Weaponizing Criminal Process

In a candid reflection on misuse of criminal litigation, the Court acknowledged the sociological pattern where informants often exaggerate the array of accused, implicating not only principal perpetrators but also relatives and associates out of personal enmity or vendetta.

“This Court is very well cognizant of the sociological reality... manifesting a demonstrable tendency on part of the informant/complainant to amplify the array of accused beyond the principal perpetrators.”

Justice Goel critically noted that the complainant had attributed distinct, superficial injuries to each of the five named assailants, with suspicious precision, suggesting the likelihood of an exaggerated narrative:

“It does not meet the test of prudence that 5 armed individuals, while attacking the complainant, would only inflict one such injury each, just to register their presence in the offence.”

Such mechanical attribution of roles, without credible corroboration, was deemed legally insufficient to summon additional accused under Section 319.

“Judicial Power Under Section 319 Cannot Be Invoked Casually” – Revision Petition Dismissed, Trial to Proceed Without Interference

Upholding the impugned order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and clarified that its observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the ongoing trial.

“The impugned order... does not call for any interference... The trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application by dismissing the same.”

The decision underscores the judiciary’s measured and principled application of procedural powers, especially when criminal liberty is at stake and the risk of abuse of process looms large.

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025