[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishaak And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 February, 2026
127
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. M- 44508 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.02.2026
Ishaak and Another
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and Another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.
Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Deepali Verma, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent No.1.
Mr. L.S.Mann. Advocate
for the respondent No.2.
Surya Partap Singh, J.
1. By virtue of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 the quashing of order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure
P6), hereinafter being referred to as "impugned order" only, passed by the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, in a revision petition, has
been challenged.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from the record are that, that
for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324,
325, 326 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, the FIR was lodged in Police Station Rozka Mew, District
2026.02.08 13:36 Mewat, Haryana. In the above mentioned case, after registration of FIR, the
investigation was taken up and during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Agency observed that two of the accused, namely 'Sabbir' and
'Ishaak' were not involved in the commission of offence. Thus, the other
accused except the above named two persons were prosecuted and sent to
the Court to stand trial. During the course of above mentioned trial, an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for
summoning petitioner as additional accused. As per petitioner, although the
above mentioned application did not find favour in the learned trial Court,
but the revision petition, referred against the order of learned trial Court, has
been allowed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge by virtue of
impugned order.
3. Heard.
4. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that an error of
judgment has been committed by the learned Revisional Court when without
proper appreciation of evidence available on record, it has drawn the
conclusion that sufficient grounds for summoning of the petitioners as
additional accused are made out.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on
proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, a right view
was taken by the Investigating Agency when it exonerated the petitioners
from being prosecuted and the above mentioned observation of the
Investigating Agency was duly approved by the learned trial Court.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, however, in utter disregard
to the settled principles of law and without appreciating the evidence, the
learned Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition and issued a
direction to the learned trial Court to summon the petitioners as additional
accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that
the impugned order is against the facts as well as law and therefore, the same
is not sustainable. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Shiv Baran v. State of
U.P. and Another' 225 SCC Online SC 457, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has sought intervention and indulgence of this Court in the
impugned order.
6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners with
regard to allegations attributed to the petitioner No.1 has referred to the
testimony of PW.3-Dr. Sanjay Bajpai wherein it has been deposed by the
above named doctor that there was no sharp-edged injury on the ear and
right thigh of the injured.
7. The above mentioned arguments have been controverted by the
learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant/respondent No.2. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has fairly conceded that the opinion formed
by the learned Revisional Court with regard to summoning of petitioner
No.2-Sabbir is not in conformity with the factual matrix of the case and the
relevant law.
8. However, with regard to summoning of petitioner No.1-Ishaak
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that there was
very specific and categorical allegation at the first instance in the complaint
which served as foundation of FIR, that the petitioner No.1 armed with
sharp-edged weapon had inflicted injuries on the person of complainant. As
per learned State counsel the above mentioned allegations were duly
supported and corroborated by the medico-legal report. According to learned
counsel for the respondent No.2, the Investigating Agency had acted in an
unfair manner when despite the availability of above mentioned material,
the petitioner No.1 was not prosecuted. In addition to above, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has further contended that the learned
Revisional Court has properly analyzed all the facts and circumstances of the
present case viz-a-viz evidence, and that a right conclusion has been drawn
by the learned Revisional Court.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. As far as the instant case is concerned, at the very outset it is
pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order, the learned Revisional
Court has returned its finding in the following words:-
"7. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and has
mentioned Ishak as one of the assailants, with a similar
allegation that he assaulted him with a knife. The MLR of the
injured party is also on record, which corresponds to this oral
version of the complainant's testimony.
8. However, the name of Sabbir is apparently missing from
all these relevant documents, such as the complaint or the
material witness evidence examined so far.
9. In this scenario, there is sufficient material that refers to
Ishak as having been part of the group of assailants who
attacked the complainant on the date of the incident. However,
there is not sufficient material that identifies the named person
Sabbir in a similar manner."
Findings qua Petitioner No.2-Sabbir
11. A bare perusal of above mentioned findings in itself show that
the learned Revisional Court has observed that there was no sufficient
material against the petitioner No.2-Sabbir. However, despite the above
mentioned observations the learned Revisional Court proceeded to direct
the learned trial Court to hear the matter with regard to summoning of
petitioner No.2-Sabbir. Once dissatisfaction was recorded by the learned
Revisional Court that there was no material qua petitioner No.2-Sabbir, there
was no occasion for the learned Revisional Court to issue a direction to the
learned trial Court to re-hear the matter with regard to above mentioned
aspect.
12. Thus, qua petitioner No.2-Sabbir, the impugned order passed by
the learned trial Court is perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Hence, it is hereby held that qua petitioner No.2-Sabbir the impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
Findings qua Petitioner No.1-Ishaak
13. As far as the allegations qua the petitioner No.1-Ishaak are
concerned the relevant law with regard to summoning of additional accused
by invoking the jurisdiction Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Shiv Baran' (supra) wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that power to summon an
additional accused during trial must the exercised cautiously by the Court,
and that it should be based upon a strong and cogent evidence. The test of
satisfaction has also been elaborated in the above mentioned judgment and it
has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the Court
must form an opinion that the evidence presented is more than a mere
probability of complicity but less than the degree of satisfaction required for
conviction. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
that the court must exercise utmost caution and avoid conducting a mini-trial
at this stage.
14. The guidelines for summoning of additional accused by
invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab and Others' 2014 SCC Online 26, wherein it has been observed that
"the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge - The
difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused
and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have
already commenced against the original accused and it is the course of such
trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused ".
15. In the light of principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Hardeep Singh' (supra), if the factual
matrix available on the record are analyzed, it transpires that except the
testimony of complainant on oath which was identical to the statement given
to the police before registration of FIR there was no additional material on
record to show the involvement of petitioner No.1-Ishaak in the commission
of offence.
16. In addition to above, it is also relevant to note that as per
allegations of the complainant at the time of commission of offence, the
petitioner No.1 was armed with a knife and he inflicted injury on the ear and
right thigh of the complainant. The above mentioned description of role of
petitioner No.1 as depicted by the complaint/PW.1 does not find support
from the testimony of Medical Officer (Annexure P-7), who has already
been examined as PW.3 and who has deposed that there was no injury
caused by sharp-edged weapon on the ear and right thigh of the complainant.
17. Since the testimony of Medical Officer, who is otherwise an
independent witness, carries a very high probative value in comparison to
the deposition of complainant who is an interested witness, it is hereby held
that the above mentioned medical evidence instead of providing any support
to the respondent No.2, has virtually demolished the plea of respondent No.2
that with a sharp-edged weapon the injuries were caused by the petitioner
No.1 on the ear and right thigh of the complainant/respondent No.2.
Conclusion
18. As a sequel to above mentioned observations, it is hereby held
that the learned Revisional Court has committed an error of judgment when
without proper appreciation of facts as well as evidence available on record,
it has accepted the revision petition and issued a direction to the learned trial
Court to reconsider the application with regard to summoning of the
petitioners as additional accused. Thus, it is hereby held that there is need
for indulgence and interference in the impugned order, by exercising the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
19. As a sequel to above mentioned observations, it is hereby held
that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Hence, the present petition
is allowed and the impugned order is hereby ordered to be quashed.
20. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Surya Partap Singh)
Judge
February 05, 2026
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
