The Punjab & Haryana High Court while quashing the summoning order against the accused in a murder case observed that merely for the reason that the petitioners have been named by the complainant, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record satisfies ‘test of more than prima facie case’.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed challenging the application filed under Section 319 CrPC by the prosecution and summoning the petitioners as additional accused in an FIR lodged in 2015 about a murder case under Sections 365 and 342 of IPC (Sections 364-A, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC), at Fazilka, Punjab.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the allegation against the proposed accused i.e. the petitioners was only a bald allegation that they were also involved in the commission of offence without attributing any role to them. Further, the court referred to the decision of the court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab wherein it was held that once an accused has been discharged, the procedure for enquiry envisaged under Section 398 Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented by prescribing to the procedure under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The court further referred to the decision of the court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors., wherein it was held that if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the court that those who have not been arraigned as accused or against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence, the Court can take cognizance against them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and try them along with the other accused.
The court further stated that merely for the reason that the petitioners have been named by the complainant, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record satisfies ‘test of more than prima facie case’.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the summoning order.
Case Title: Geeta Devi and anr. vs State of Punjab and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Case No.: CRR-4871-2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rahul Deswal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Tarun Aggarwal and Mr R.S. Sekhon
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
