DATE OF DECISION STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. STATE OF v. vs
Case Details
CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 125 MANOJ KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR RR-2361-2025 (O&M) CR .2025 DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. STATE OF VERSUS VERSUS PETITIONER .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate , Advocate for the petitioner. SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J. SURYA PRATAP SINGH 1. by the Vide order dated 05.08.2025, the application moved by the Vide order dated 05.08.2025, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, petitioner/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, petitioner/complainant, has been dismissed by the under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed by the under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure ng referred to as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, hereinafter being referred to as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, hereinafter bei learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, hereinafter bei ‘trial Court’. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order ‘trial Court’ , the present revision Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the present revision has been preferred. petition has been preferred. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that an error of judgment It has been alleged by the petitioner that an error of judgment It has been alleged by the petitioner that an error of judgment
Legal Reasoning
has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned
Decision
eciation of order, and that the impugned order is an outcome of wrong appreciation of order, and that the impugned order is an outcome of wrong appr order, and that the impugned order is an outcome of wrong appr fact as well as evidence. According to petitioner, there were specific fact as well as evidence. According to petitioner, there were specific fact as well as evidence. According to petitioner, there were specific fact as well as evidence. According to petitioner, there were specific GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 2 allegations with regard to involvement of Bhopal, S/o Ram Chander and allegations with regard to involvement of Bhopal, S/o Ram Chander and allegations with regard to involvement of Bhopal, S/o Ram Chander and allegations with regard to involvement of Bhopal, S/o Ram Chander and Mohit S/o Bhopal in the commission of crime, and that Mohit S/o to support the Bhopal in the commission of crime, and that to support the was testimony of the petitioner on oath. abovementioned allegations, there was testimony of the petitioner on oath. was testimony of the petitioner on oath. abovementioned allegations, there 3. in view of above, there was It has also been contended that in view of above, there was It has also been contended that sufficient material on record for the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the sufficient material on record for the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the sufficient material on record for the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the sufficient material on record for the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned trial Court, by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC. As per petitioner learned trial Court , since by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC. As per petitioner, since not been exercised and the application has been such jurisdiction has not been exercised and the application has been not been exercised and the application has been such jurisdiction has dismissed, there is need for indulgence and interference of revisional dismissed, there is need for indulgence and interference of revisional dismissed, there is need for indulgence and interference of revisional dismissed, there is need for indulgence and interference of revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned order. jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned order. jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned order. 4. hat the FIR Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are t No.98 dated 09.04.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 307, 506 and 34 of Indian No.98 dated 09.04.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 307, 506 and 34 of Indian No.98 dated 09.04.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 307, 506 and 34 of Indian No.98 dated 09.04.2023, under Sections 323, 341, 307, 506 and 34 of Indian , has been lodged on Penal Code, Police Station Ateli, District Mahendergarh, has been lodged on Penal Code, Police Station Ateli, District Penal Code, Police Station Ateli, District In the abovementioned complaint, it a complaint submitted by the petitioner. In the abovementioned complaint, it In the abovementioned complaint, it a complaint submitted by the petitioner. was alleged by the petitioner that on 04.04.2023 at about 07:20 pm, was alleged by t when he he petitioner that on 04.04.2023 at about 07:20 pm, when he was going towards his tubewell on his tractor, a white coloured camper was going towards his tubewell on his tractor, a white coloured camper was going towards his tubewell on his tractor, a white coloured camper was going towards his tubewell on his tractor, a white coloured camper 7 youngsters armed vehicle, having no number plate, blocked his way and 6-7 youngsters armed vehicle, having no number plate, blocked his way vehicle, having no number plate, blocked his way e and they all launched with sharp weapon got off the abovementioned vehicle and they all launched with sharp weapon got off the abovementioned vehicl with sharp weapon got off the abovementioned vehicl an attack upon him. According to petitioner, an attack upon in the abovementioned attack, . According to petitioner, in the abovementioned attack, edged weapons and rods on head and he had suffered injuries with sharp-edged weapons and rods on head and edged weapons and rods on head and he had suffered injuries with sharp other body parts, and that his maternal uncle, other body part while going from Village maternal uncle, while going from Village Kheri to i to Chapra Salimpur, arrived on the spot by chance and got him the spot by chance and got him admitted in PHC Ateli. admitted in PHC Ateli. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 3 5. In the abovementioned complaint, it was further alleged by the complaint, it was further alleged by the petitioner that he had a dispute with Bhopal S/o Ram Chander and Mohit S/o petitioner that he had a dispute with Bhopal S/o Ram Chander and Mohit S/o petitioner that he had a dispute with Bhopal S/o Ram Chander and Mohit S/o petitioner that he had a dispute with Bhopal S/o Ram Chander and Mohit S/o Bhopal with regard to a boundar with regard to a boundary wall, and that 6 7 days prior to incident, wall, and that 6-7 days prior to incident, both of them had threatened the petitioner and proclaimed that they would both of them had threatened the petitioner and proclaimed that they would both of them had threatened the petitioner and proclaimed that they would both of them had threatened the petitioner and proclaimed that they would eliminate him and his family members. It was specifically mentioned by the eliminate him and his family members. It was specifically mentioned by the eliminate him and his family members. It was specifically mentioned by the eliminate him and his family members. It was specifically mentioned by the ad taken place petitioner that he believed that the abovementioned incident had taken place petitioner that he believed that the abovementioned incident h petitioner that he believed that the abovementioned incident h at the instance of Bhopal and Mohit. at the instance of Bhopal and Mohit. 6. In addition to above, the petitioner had also alleged that on In addition to above, the petitioner had also alleged that on In addition to above, the petitioner had also alleged that on , when he was going towards his home after attending a date in 28.01.2022, when he was going towards his home after attending a date in , when he was going towards his home after attending a date in 28.01.2022 Narnaul Court with regard to a land dispute with Bhopal, his car Narnaul Court with regard to was hit land dispute with Bhopal, his car was hit from behind and he was seriously injured. from behind and he was seriously injured. from behind and he was seriously injured. 7. 8. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that facts were brought into the notice of Investigating all the abovementioned facts were brought into the notice of Investigating facts were brought into the notice of Investigating all the abovementioned Officer, but the Investigating Officer, despite Officer, but specific averments with regard Investigating Officer, despite specific averments with regard in the commission of crime, has not to involvement of ‘Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ in the commission of crime, has not in the commission of crime, has not to involvement of 193 of BNSS (erstwhile prosecuted them and filed final report under Section 193 of BNSS (erstwhile prosecuted them and filed final report under Section prosecuted them and filed final report under Section Section 173 of CrPC against other accused only. As per learned counsel for against other accused only. As per learned counsel fo 173 of CrPC) against other accused only. As per learned counsel fo and after the petitioner, once the final report has been filed in the Court and after the petitioner, once the final report has been filed in the Court the petitioner, once the final report has been filed in the Court framing of charge, the statement of petitioner was recorded on oath, the framing of charge, the statement of petitioner was recorded on oath, the framing of charge, the statement of petitioner was recorded on oath, the framing of charge, the statement of petitioner was recorded on oath, the same facts were reproduced by the petitioner. According to learned counsel same facts were reproduced by the petitioner. According to learned counsel same facts were reproduced by the petitioner. According to learned counsel same facts were reproduced by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the statement on oath before the Court for the petitioner, in the sta also, the tement on oath before the Court also, the GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 4 petitioner specifically mentioned that ‘Bhopal petitioner specifically mentioned that were responsible Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ were responsible for the commission of abovementioned crime. for the commission of abovementioned crime. for the commission of abovementioned crime. 9. has further argued that on The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that on The learned counsel for the petitioner 1), an the strength of abovementioned statement of petitioner (as PW-1), an the strength of abovementioned statement of petitioner (as PW the strength of abovementioned statement of petitioner (as PW application under Section 319 of CrPC was moved by the petitioner calling application under Section 319 of CrPC was moved by the petitioner calling application under Section 319 of CrPC was moved by the petitioner calling application under Section 319 of CrPC was moved by the petitioner calling upon the learned trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction vested by virtue of upon the learned trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction vested by virtue of upon the learned trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction vested by virtue of upon the learned trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC and summon 319 of CrPC and summon ‘Bhopal as additional Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ as additional accused. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was specific averment with regard to Court has failed to appreciate that there was specific averment with regard to Court has failed to appreciate that there was specific averment with regard to Court has failed to appreciate that there was specific averment with regard to involvement of ‘Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ as accused in the accused involvement of and the s accused in the accused, and the abovementioned averment has been duly supported by the statement on oath. abovementioned averment has been duly supported by the statement on oath abovementioned averment has been duly supported by the statement on oath abovementioned averment has been duly supported by the statement on oath As per learned counsel for the petitioner, despite abovementioned ample As per learned counsel for the petitioner, despite abovementioned ample As per learned counsel for the petitioner, despite abovementioned ample As per learned counsel for the petitioner, despite abovementioned ample wrongly observed, merely on the basis evidence, the learned trial Court has wrongly observed, merely on the basis wrongly observed, merely on the basis evidence, the learned trial Court of assumptions and presumptions that no case for summoning of Bhopal and of assumptions and presumptions that no case for summoning of Bhopal and of assumptions and presumptions that no case for summoning of Bhopal and of assumptions and presumptions that no case for summoning of Bhopal and Mohit as additional accused is made out. Mohit as additional accused is made out 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the and denial of summoning of main accused, who were the main conspirators and denial of summoning of main accused, who were the main conspirators denial of summoning of main accused, who were the main conspirators esponsible for the commission of offence would result into miscarriage of responsible for the commission of offence would result into miscarriage of esponsible for the commission of offence would result into miscarriage of esponsible for the commission of offence would result into miscarriage of justice, and the trial cannot be successfully conducted in their absence. justice, and the trial cannot be successfully conducted in their absence. justice, and the trial cannot be successfully conducted in their absence. 12. 13. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. be taken In the present case, one of the most significant fact to be taken In the present case, one of the most significant fact to into consideration is that the entire thrust of the petitioner, while challenging into consideration is that the entire thrust of the petitioner, while challenging into consideration is that the entire thrust of the petitioner, while challenging into consideration is that the entire thrust of the petitioner, while challenging GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 5 , is upon the fact that at the first instance, he had the impugned order, is upon the fact that at the first instance, he had , is upon the fact that at the first instance, he had the impugned order informed the police about the involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the informed the police about the involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the informed the police about the involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the informed the police about the involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the commission of crime. commission of crime. 14. With regard to above, it is relevant to note here that the contents With regard to above, it is relevant to note here that the contents With regard to above, it is relevant to note here that the contents itself shows that the act of causing injury has been attributed by of the FIR itself shows that the act of causing injury has been attributed by itself shows that the act of causing injury has been attributed by of the FIR some unknown persons and there is no specific allegations the petitioner to some unknown persons and there is no specific allegations some unknown persons and there is no specific allegations the petitioner to pal and Mohit were present on the spot. that at the time of attack, Bhopal and Mohit were present on the spot. that at the time of attack, Bho 15. to be taken into consideration is The another significant fact to be taken into consideration is The another significant fact that in the FIR, the only averment with regard to involvement of Bhopal and that in the FIR, the only averment with regard to involvement of Bhopal and that in the FIR, the only averment with regard to involvement of Bhopal and that in the FIR, the only averment with regard to involvement of Bhopal and Mohit is that it is the belief of the petitioner that they were invol Mohit is that ved in the it is the belief of the petitioner that they were involved in the commission of crime. Merely a belief cannot take the place of commission of crime erely a belief cannot take the place of proof. 16. One more significant aspect to be taken into consideration is One more significant aspect to be taken into consideration is One more significant aspect to be taken into consideration is that the abovementioned belief of the petitioner was founded on a plea that that the abovementioned belief of the petitioner was founded on a plea that that the abovementioned belief of the petitioner was founded on a plea that that the abovementioned belief of the petitioner was founded on a plea that 6-7 days prior 7 days prior to the incident, he was threatened by Bhopal and Mohit. With he was threatened by Bhopal and Mohit. With regard to above, it is significant to note here that the date, time and place of regard to above, it is significant to note here that the date, time and place of regard to above, it is significant to note here that the date, time and place of regard to above, it is significant to note here that the date, time and place of specified in the FIR. abovementioned incident have not been specified in the FIR. abovementioned incident have not been 17. In addition to above, it is also relevant to note here that if any In addition to above, it is also relevant to note here that if a In addition to above, it is also relevant to note here that if a such incident would have occurred, it would have amounted to commission such incident would have occurred, it would have amounted to commission such incident would have occurred, it would have amounted to commission such incident would have occurred, it would have amounted to commission of an offence and for that purpose, some complaint should have been moved of an offence and for that purpose, some complaint should have been moved of an offence and for that purpose, some complaint should have been moved of an offence and for that purpose, some complaint should have been moved that with regard to by the petitioner, but there is nothing on record to show that with regard to by the petitioner, but there is nothing on record by the petitioner, but there is nothing on record n, the petitioner had filed any complaint before abovesaid alleged intimidation, the petitioner had filed any complaint before n, the petitioner had filed any complaint before abovesaid alleged the Court. the Court. GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 6 18. Another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that the Another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that the Another relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that the police had conducted a thorough investigation in the present case and after d conducted a thorough investigation in the present case and after conducted a thorough investigation in the present case and after been found by the investigating agency that allegations investigation, it had been found by the investigating agency that allegations been found by the investigating agency that allegations investigation, it ha of petitioner with regard to involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the of petitioner with regard to involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the of petitioner with regard to involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the of petitioner with regard to involvement of Bhopal and Mohit in the commission of crime are not established. commission of crime are not 19. With regard to exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned trial With regard to exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned trial With regard to exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned trial of Section 319 of CrPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Court, by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of of Section 319 of CrPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Court, by virtue India propounded the law propounded the law in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of in the case of ‘Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab’, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. It Punjab’, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623 the test to . It has been observed that the test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the 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 time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that 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 evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of e Court should refrain from exercising power under such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under e Court should refrain from exercising power under such satisfaction, th Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC, the purpose of providing if it Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC, the purpose of providing if it Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC, the purpose of providing if it Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC, the purpose of providing if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has could committed any offence is clear from the words for which such person could committed any offence is clear from the words for which such person committed any offence is clear from the words for which such person be tried together with the accused. The words used are not for which such be tried together with the accused. The words used are not for which such be tried together with the accused. The words used are not for which such 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 person could be convicted. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting person could be convicted. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting person could be convicted. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. 20. atrix of the instant case is tested on the If the factual matrix of the instant case is tested on the atrix of the instant case is tested on the touchstone laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned touchstone laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned touchstone laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned touchstone laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned the evidence available on record fails to meet the test case, it transpires that the evidence available on record fails to meet the test the evidence available on record fails to meet the test case, it transpires that GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2361 2361-2025(O&M) 8587 7 jurisdiction meant for summoning of additional accused in the exercise of jurisdiction meant for summoning of additional accused in the exercise of meant for summoning of additional accused in the exercise of vested in the Court by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC. vested in the Court by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC. vested in the Court by virtue of Section 319 of CrPC. 21. In view of abovementioned observations, once there was no In view of abovementioned observations, once there was no In view of abovementioned observations, once there was no on the specific allegation with regard to presence of ‘Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ on the specific allegation with regard to presence of specific allegation with regard to presence of was any electronic record, spot and with regard to conspiracy neither, there was any electronic record, spot and with regard to conspiracy neither, there spot and with regard to conspiracy neither, there any other evidence, it is hereby held that merely on the basis of belief of nor any other evidence, it is hereby held that merely on the basis of belief of any other evidence, it is hereby held that merely on the basis of belief of any other evidence, it is hereby held that merely on the basis of belief of the petitioner, it cannot be held that ‘Bhopal the petitioner, it cannot were actually Bhopal’ and ‘Mohit’ were actually involved in hatching conspiracy in the commission of offence. Hence, it is involved in hatching conspiracy in the commission of offence. Hence, it is involved in hatching conspiracy in the commission of offence. Hence, it is involved in hatching conspiracy in the commission of offence. Hence, it is held that apparently, there is no illegality or infirmity in the exercise hereby held that apparently, there is no illegality or infirmity in the exercise held that apparently, there is no illegality or infirmity in the exercise held that apparently, there is no illegality or infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court of jurisdiction by the learned trial Court summon in rejecting the request to summon ‘Bhopal’ and as additional accused. and ‘Mohit’ as additional accused. 22. In view of above, it is hereby held that there is no merit in the , it is hereby held that there is no merit in the the present present petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the present present petition and the same deserves dismissal. present petition and the same deserves dismissal. petition is hereby dismissed. petition is hereby dismissed. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. disposed of. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No : Yes/No : Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2025.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document