Mere attestation of subsequent sale deeds, without nexus to forgery, cannot justify Section 319 summoning.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 17 March 2026.

By that order, the Revisional Court allowed respondent No. 2 Arvinder Singh Chini’s revision against the Magistrate’s order dated 7 June 2023, which had summoned him and three others under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 26 dated 19 April 2016, registered for offences relating to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and conspiracy.

The FIR concerned allegations that the Wills of the petitioner’s parents had been forged and fabricated, followed by manipulation of Municipal Corporation records and alienation of the property by the beneficiaries.

During trial, the petitioner attributed specific roles to Parminder Mehta, a former Municipal Councillor, and Arvinder Singh Chini, a property dealer.

The Magistrate summoned both of them, along with Sarita and Aarti Rani, under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Parminder Mehta’s revision was dismissed, whereas Arvinder Singh Chini’s revision was allowed.

Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in allowing respondent No. 2’s revision against the order summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., particularly when the revision of co-accused Parminder Mehta had been dismissed?

Whether mere attestation of subsequent sale deeds, without material connecting respondent No. 2 with the alleged fabrication or procurement of the Wills, satisfied the evidentiary threshold for summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?

Whether the alleged deficiencies in service upon the petitioner in the revision proceedings rendered the Revisional Court’s order legally unsustainable?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and Section 319 Cr.P.C., which permits a court to summon a person appearing from the evidence to have committed an offence.

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and the evidence required is greater than that necessary to establish a mere prima facie case, although it need not reach the standard necessary for conviction.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92, the Court reiterated that the degree of satisfaction for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is broadly equivalent to the satisfaction required for framing a charge.

The relevant offences were originally registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS.

The Court held that the material against Arvinder Singh Chini did not meet the heightened threshold applicable under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The alleged forgery related to the Wills and associated Municipal Corporation records, but there was no evidence that respondent No. 2 participated in their preparation, fabrication, procurement or registration.

His role was confined to witnessing two subsequent sale deeds, and there was no allegation that those sale deeds were themselves forged.

Mere attestation of documents executed after the alleged forgery, without any foundational circumstance or overt act linking him to the substantive offences, could not justify his arraignment as an additional accused.

The Court also rejected the petitioner’s parity argument.

Parminder Mehta was not similarly situated because the allegations against him included fabrication of Municipal Corporation records, and he was a Municipal Corporator who had attested the pedigree table.

The material against him was therefore distinct from the material against respondent No. 2.

Consequently, the Revisional Court’s differentiated treatment was not arbitrary or legally impermissible.

The Court found no material illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under its inherent jurisdiction.

The Court held that mere attestation of subsequent, undisputed sale deeds did not establish the requisite nexus between respondent No. 2 and the alleged forgery of the Wills.

It further held that Parminder Mehta’s case stood on a materially different factual footing.

All pending miscellaneous and connected applications were disposed of as infructuous.