[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kavita vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 March, 2026
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M)
Date of Reserved: 11.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 18.03.2026.
Kavita ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Argued by: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate and
Mr. Anuj Mahla, Advocate and
Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Singla, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Divya Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, vide which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and against the impugned order dated
18.07.2025, vide which charges under Section 420, 447 of IPC and Section
3 of SC/ST Act were framed against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present
revision petition are that the petitioner got registered FIR No.83 dated
09.07.2020, under Sections 420, 447, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 of Sc/ST
1 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 2-
Act registered against the petitioner and her husband Bijender Singh
alleging that she belongs to Balmiki (Scheduled Caste) whereas accused
belongs to Jaat Caste, who often used to come to meet complainant's
husband. He asked the complainant and her husband to take loan from the
bank for setting up fish farm and offered to give his land on concessional
price for the fish farm. Complainant purchased 2 kanal 2 marlas land from
agricultural land of accused/ Bijender on 04.02.2019 for Rs.8,27,000/-.
Complainant is the sole proprietor of her firm and she moved application in
the Bank of India, Kutani Branch for taking loan for fisheries in the name of
her firm M/s Nima Enterprise village Nimbri post office Risalu, District
Panipat. Bank sanctioned CC limit of Rs.20,00,000/- and term loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- for fisheries in the name of aforesaid firm. Land of accused
was adjacent to the above said plot and he told the complainant and her
husband to expand the work of fisheries and gave assurance that whatever
amount would be invested in the business for expansion, in the same ratio
the income from the business would be distributed. Complainant gave
complete detail of expanses of Rs.30,00,000/- to the accused. Accused
deposited only four installments of Rs.30,000/- and one installment of
Rs.80,000/- of the bank loan and after some days took possession of the
complete business of complainant and illegally ousted the complainant and
her husband Manoj from the fish farm. Accused had set up their new firm
Panipat Fishring parallel to her firm and started doing whole transaction of
above mentioned firm from their firm. On 19.03.2020, complainant and her
husband received notice from Bank of India regarding non payment of
installments and non maintaining the account and when they told the
2 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 3-
accused regarding the same he did not listen to them and insulted the
complainant and her husband in the village publically by abusing them by
caste and forcibly ousted them from the entire business as they belong to
poor Scheduled Caste. On 10.06.2020 at about 8:30 A.M. complainant and
her son Himanshu went to the house of the accused to talk about this matter,
but accused and his wife ousted the complainant and his son from the house
by abusing them by caste and when complainant and her son came in the
street then also accused Bijender and his wife came in the street and abused
them by caste while threatening them asked them to run away otherwise,
they would be killed. In the meantime, husband of complainant Manoj and
many persons of the village came at the spot and then also accused and his
wife insulted the complainant and the husband of complainant and their son
Himanshu by abusing them by their caste. On the basis of the aforesaid facts
the present FIR was registered.
3. After registration of the FIR the investigation proceedings were
initiated. During investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and
she was not challaned and she was placed in column No.2 of the challan
report and challan was presented only against accused Bijender.
4. During trial complainant appeared as PW1 before the trial
Court and after her examination-in-chief recorded on 18.09.2023
complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for
summoning of petitioner as an additional accused. Learned trial Court vide
impugned order dated 06.05.2025 summoned the petitioner as an additional
accused to face trial along with accused Bijender and subsequently framed
charges against the petitioner vide order dated 18.07.2025.
3 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 4-
5. Aggrieved of the said decisions, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of present Revision Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
investigating agency had found the petitioner to be innocent. In the course
of the trial, no such material came on record, which could justify
summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused and to link the
petitioner with the alleged incident. He further contended that the
complainant just reiterated her earlier version given at the time of
registration of FIR and no new material came on record to summon the
petitioner. He argued that there is civil dispute between the parties and the
complainant with an intention to avoid payment of Rs.11,78,338 to the
husband of the petitioner falsely got registered this case. The present FIR
against the petitioner and her husband is a counter blast to the legal notice
dated 21.01.2020 and complaint dated 21.01.2020 just to pressurize and to
harass the petitioner and her husband, so that her husband would not ask for
Rs.11,78,338/- and they could grab 2 kanals 2 marlas of land of the
petitioner without paying any sale consideration to the husband of the
petitioner. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon Daljeet
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2016(2), Law Herald (P&H), 1434; Smt.
Sushil Soni Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2016(2), Law Herald
(P&H), 1409; Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another Vs. State of
Gujarat and others, 2014(2) Law Herald (SC), 1197 and Jain Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H), 1459. He urged
that as the impugned orders suffer from material irregularity and illegality,
so the aforesaid orders be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for
4 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 5-
complainant/ respondent No.2 contended that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned orders. Statement of the complainant recorded in
the trial Court is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence in the
present case. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon Saeeda
Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020(2) SCC 323; S.
Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and others, 2017(16) SCC
226 and Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami Reddy and another, 2007(2),
R.C.R (Criminal) 1014. He submitted that the present petition is devoid of
any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant record.
8. It is clear from Section 319 Cr.P.C., that power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage, during trial to
summon any person as an accused to face the trial, if it appears from the
evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person
could be tried together with the accused.
9. Illuminating the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC
92, laid down that:-
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an
extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in
those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. 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 evidence led before the court
that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and
5 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 6-
cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold 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 Cross-Examination, it requires much
stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test
that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case
as exercised 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 satisfaction, the
court should refrain from exercising power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it
appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused
has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which
such person could be tried together with the accused." The words
used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is,
therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
10. Recently in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. The State of Punjab
(2023) 1 SCC 289, Hon'ble Supereme Court ruled that:-
(i) if the competent court finds evidence or if application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, regarding involvement of any other
person in committing the offence based on evidence "recorded at
any stage in the trial" before passing of the order on acquittal or
sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage and the Court shall
proceed to decide the fate of the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C.;
(ii) if the Court decides to summon an accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C., such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding
further with the trial in the main case and depending upon the
stage at which the order is passed, the Trial Court shall apply its
mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be
6 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 7-
tried along with other accused or separately; and
(iii) if the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not invoked or
exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-
up case, such power can be invoked or exercised only if there is
evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the
additional accused to be summoned in the spilt-up (bifurcated
trial)."
11. Thus, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised by the Court if there is strong
and cogent evidence against a person. This power cannot be exercised in a
casual and cavalier manner and the test to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges, but
short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would
lead to conviction.
12. In Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017(3)
R.C.R. (Criminal), 374, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"11. In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution Bench has also
settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word
'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a
comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected
during investigation or the word 'evidence' is limited to the
evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material,
after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it
while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the
court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting
reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence
adduced before the Court. The word 'evidence' has to be
understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and
even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed
against any person after summoning him can be exercised on
7 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 8-
the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the
same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of
the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers
consciously on such material after evidence has been led
during trial. The Court also clarified that 'evidence'
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could even be examination-in-chief
and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested
on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court
which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court
in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial
in the offence."
13. Now adverting to the present case, though the petitioner had
been named by the complainant in the FIR by levelling the allegations that
she along with her husband abused the complainant, her husband and son by
their caste, but during the investigation, she was found to be innocent and as
such she was not challaned by the Investigating Officer. In the reply
submitted by the State, it has been alleged as under:-
"That the investigation of the case was got conducted in fair
and impartial manner exploring every aspect of the incident.
During investigation, the facts and circumstances of the case
were verified by Sh. Virender Singh, HPS, The then Deputy
Superintendent of Police, City, Panipat. Various respectables of
the society and persons living around the area were joined in
the investigation of case including (i) Satender s/o Sarbir Singh
(ii) Amit s/o Ram Kishan (iii) Kuldeep Chauhan s/o Surajbhan
(iv) Jagjiwan Ram s/o Prem Singh (v) Rajesh s/o Gulab (vi)
Sonu s/o Dalel Singh (vii) Surjeet Singh s/o Jagir Singh (viii)
Deepak S/o Rajbir (ix) Neeraj s/o Balbir Singh (x) Anil s/o
Prem Singh and their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. They also tendered their duly sworn affidavits in this
regard. They got recorded their statement in unison that Kavita
(petitioner) is innocent, she is not involved in the incident in
8 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 9-
any manner and that the accused persons had not used any
caste based abuses for the complainant. Hence, the present
petitioner was found to be innocent in the present case."
14. After investigation no further evidence or material is available
on record to link the petitioner with the alleged incident. The complainant
while suffering statement before the trial Court has reiterated her earlier
version made at the time of registration of the FIR. Summoning order of the
petitioner is solely based on the deposition of the complainant. Mere
disclosing the name of the petitioner by the complainant cannot be said to
be a strong and cogent evidence to make her stand trial. The trial Court went
only by deposition of complainant in her examination-in-chief, with no
other material to support her verbal/ ocular version, thus the evidence
recorded during trial was nothing more than the statement which was
already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded at the initial stage of the
investigation. Undoubtedly, the trial Court would be competent to exercise
its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in
examination-in-chief. However, in a case like the present where elaborate
evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer, during investigation
and recorded statement of several persons before finding the petitioner
innocent, the trial Court was also to look into the same while forming prima
facie opinion and to see as to whether much stronger evidence than mere
possibility of petitioner's complicity has come on record. No such
satisfaction has been recorded by the trial Court.
15. Thus, merely for the reason that the petitioner has been named
by the complainant, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised and the evidence on record not satisfies test of more than prima
9 of 10
CRR-2003-2025 (O&M) - 10-
facie case.
16. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the impugned order, whereby the petitioner had been summoned to face trial
as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned summoning
order along with all subsequent proceedings are hereby set aside.
17. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
18.03.2026.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
10 of 10
