Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M)
Karan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 02.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 08.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Gurminder Singh Sullar, Advocate and
Ms. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 to 4.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the order dated 23.02.2017, passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in case arising out of FIR No. 101
dated 28.07.2013, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 325 of
IPC at Police Station Rohadai, whereby the revision petition filed by
respondents No.2 to 4 was allowed and the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kosli, summoning
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -2-

respondents No.2 to 4 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial in the
aforementioned case was set aside.
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 a
written complaint moved by the present petitioner/complainant alleging
therein that on 25.07.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., around 20 persons entered into
his house and misbehaved with his daughters. When the complainant tried to
save them, the accused persons started beating him and his daughters. It was
further alleged that Dinesh gave a blow on the right hand of the complainant,
whereas his son Gautam (respondent No.3) gave a blow with an iron rod, as a
result of which the hand of the complainant was fractured. The son of Karan
Singh gave a lathi/danda blow on the leg of the complainant, resulting in
fracture of his leg. Maha Singh gave a blow with a jelly on the left leg of the
complainant, causing an injury to the skin. Karan Singh gave an axe blow on
the left hand of the complainant. Rattan Singh gave a lathi/danda blow on the
left eye of the complainant, while his two sons caused lathi injuries on his
head. Ran Singh gave a lathi blow on the back of the complainant and his two
sons caused lathi injuries to his legs. The sons of Maha Singh were also
alleged to have caused lathi blows on the waist and stomach of the
complainant. It was further alleged that Raju (respondent No.4) was carrying a
pistol, which he placed against the temple of the complainant and threatened
to kill him and his daughters. Jasbir was also alleged to have beaten the
complainant with a lathi. Satbir and his sons were alleged to have beaten the
complainant with lathis, while Suraj Bhan and Babu Lal were also alleged to
have caused beatings to the complainant and his daughters. The complainant
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -3-

alleged that his daughters Sapna and Satyawati suffered injuries during the
occurrence. It was also alleged that while leaving the place of occurrence, the
accused persons threatened to kill the complainant and his daughters
whenever they got an opportunity. In addition, the complainant alleged that on
17.07.2013, Raju and Dinesh had beaten his daughter Satyawati and her chain
and ear-rings had gone missing thereafter. When the complainant tried to save
her, he was also beaten.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. After completion of the same, challan was presented against six
accused, namely Dinesh, Ran Singh, Rattan Singh, Karan Singh, Maha Singh
and Pankaj, whereas the remaining persons, including respondents No.2 to 4,
were found innocent and their names were placed in column No.2.
4. During trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. for summoning the persons who had not been challaned. The learned
trial Court, vide order dated 01.06.2016, partly allowed the application and
summoned Yogesh Kumar, Gautam Arya and Raj Kumar @ Raju
(respondents No. 2 to 4) to face trial for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. Aggrieved
by the said order, respondents No.2 to 4 filed a criminal revision. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 23.02.2017, allowed the
revision and set aside the summoning order. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner
has filed the present petition.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Magistrate
had rightly summoned respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of the statements of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -4-

the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence. It is further argued that
the learned revisional Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence and in
setting aside the summoning order. It is further argued that the allegations
against respondents No.2 to 4 were specific and that their involvement was
clearly stated by the prosecution witnesses. They are liable to be prosecuted
for the offences, for which, they had been summoned. Hence, it is urged that
the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set
aside, thereby allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
6. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State
counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses had attributed specific roles to
respondents No.2 to 4 and that the injured witnesses had supported the
prosecution version. It is argued that the medical evidence also showed
injuries on the complainant and his family members. Respondents No. 2 to 4
are liable to be sent up for trial. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to
be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has
argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which is a
well reasoned order. It is further submitted that respondents No. 2 to 4 had
been found innocent during investigation conducted by the police and a senior
police officer and their names were placed in column No.2 of the challan. It is
further argued that the learned Magistrate had summoned them without
sufficient material and that the learned revisional Court had rightly interfered
with the summoning order. It was further argued that respondent No.4 Raju
was not present at the spot and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -5-

was not reliable. No case has been made out for summoning them as
additional accused. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
9. 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."
10. 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -6-

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.
11. 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
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -7-

satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319
of Cr.P.C.
12. 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.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -8-

(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.
(xvi) Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity
to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -9-

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.”

13. On applying the aforementioned proposition of law to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that the
learned revisional Court appears to have exceeded the permissible scope of
examination while setting aside the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The material which had surfaced during trial could not have been discarded by
undertaking a detailed appreciation of its evidentiary worth at this stage. PW2
Sapna, PW3 Karan Singh and PW4 Satyawati have specifically attributed
roles to respondents No.2 to 4 and their statements, being evidence recorded
before the trial Court, constitute the material on the basis of which the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was required to be examined. The fact that PW1
Khushi Ram had reached the spot after the injuries had been caused may
affect the weight to be attached to his testimony, but it cannot, by itself,
nullify the direct version furnished by the other prosecution witnesses.
Likewise, the circumstance that the site plan depicts the place of occurrence as
a passage or thoroughfare and that respondents No.2 to 4 were initially placed
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -10-

in column No.2 of the challan, are matters which may be considered at the
trial, but cannot be treated as conclusive against the prosecution evidence
which subsequently emerged before the Court.
14. It is also significant that the medical evidence corroborates the
occurrence to the extent that the complainant and his family members had
sustained injuries. While such medical evidence by itself may not establish the
identity or individual role of the assailants, it lends assurance to the
occurrence narrated by the injured witnesses. At the stage of Section 319
Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to finally determine the credibility of those
witnesses or reconcile every inconsistency in their statements. It is well settled
proposition of law that although the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
extraordinary and requires strong and cogent evidence, the Court must not
conduct a mini-trial or subject the testimony to the degree of scrutiny
applicable at the stage of final adjudication. In the present case, the consistent
attribution of specific roles to respondents No.2 to 4 by three prosecution
witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence regarding the occurrence,
furnishes sufficient material to form the requisite satisfaction that their
involvement requires examination in the trial. The subsequent finding of the
investigating agency that they were innocent cannot override the evidence
which surfaced during the trial, particularly when Section 319 Cr.P.C. itself
enables the Court to proceed against a person who was not sent up for trial by
the investigating agency. The learned revisional Court, therefore, was not
justified in effectively weighing the competing circumstances and recording
findings which trench upon the merits of the prosecution case. Accordingly,
this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court had rightly
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-9878-2017 (O&M) -11-

exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional
Court erred in setting aside the said order. Accordingly, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 is hereby set aside. The
interim stay, vide order dated 23.03.2017, stands vacated. The learned trial
Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
15. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be
construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.


08.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.08 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document