Section 319 CrPC permits summoning a column-two accused based on strong trial evidence.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the orders dated 10.01.2019 and 08.02.2019, whereby the revisional court remanded the matter for reconsideration and the trial court summoned him as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 343 dated 13.12.2007, registered under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC at Police Station Payal, Ludhiana.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner, Kulwinder Singh, gave a stick blow to injured witness Gurpal Singh during an assault by several persons.

Although the police did not charge-sheet the petitioner and placed his name in column No. 2, PW1 Gurpal Singh, an injured witness, named him during trial and attributed the specific role of inflicting the stick blow.

The petitioner asserted false implication, an alibi based on his presence at a college, and mistaken identity in relation to a person named in the cross-case.

Whether the trial court was justified in exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an additional accused despite his having been placed in column No. 2 in the police report?

Whether the petitioner’s plea of alibi and alleged discrepancy regarding his identity could be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order?

Whether the impugned orders suffered from perversity or illegality warranting interference under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 319 Cr.P.C., which empowers a criminal court to proceed against a person who is not already an accused where evidence recorded during the trial indicates that such person appears to have committed the offence.

Relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the Court held that the power is discretionary and extraordinary, must be exercised sparingly, and requires evidence stronger than a prima facie case at the stage of framing charge, though short of proof sufficient for conviction.

Under Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 18 SCC 321, the power may be exercised after commencement of trial and on the basis of evidence before the court, including examination-in-chief; material collected during investigation alone is insufficient, and the court need not finally assess the merits of that evidence at the summoning stage.

The Court further considered Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 219, concerning the requirement of strong and cogent evidence, and Jamin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 330, which recognises that placement in column No. 2 does not bar subsequent summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of trial evidence.

The Court found that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and assigned a definite role, and that this allegation was independently supported by the trial testimony of PW1 Gurpal Singh, an injured witness, who identified the petitioner and attributed the stick blow to him.

Accordingly, the summoning order was not based merely on the FIR or investigative material, but on evidence recorded during trial satisfying the applicable Section 319 standard.

The petitioner’s placement in column No. 2 did not prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

His plea of alibi required appreciation of evidence and could not be conclusively determined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Similarly, the alleged discrepancy concerning the identity of “Kulwinder Singh” was a disputed factual matter to be tested at trial, particularly because the material referred to Kulwinder Singh son of Amrik Singh and the injured witness had identified the petitioner.

The Court therefore found no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders.

It held that the trial court had lawfully summoned the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of specific and corroborative evidence emerging during trial, notwithstanding his earlier placement in column No. 2.

The interim stay granted on 18.03.2019 was vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.