Principles Governing the invocation of Section 319 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision

Introduction:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in its decision dated 04.02.2025, addressed the legality of summoning additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the case of Rinku @ Goli & Hardeep v. State of Haryana & Anr. The ruling critically examined whether the lower court had exercised due diligence in summoning the petitioners as additional accused. This article analyzes the judgment and its implications on the principles governing the invocation of Section 319 CrPC.

Factual Background:

The case arose from an FIR lodged on 02.05.2021 based on a complaint by Narender, who later succumbed to injuries. The complainant alleged that a group of individuals assaulted him and his family members. The trial court, through its order dated 28.09.2022, summoned the petitioners Rinku @ Goli and Hardeep as additional accused under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), despite their exoneration during the police investigation. This summoning was challenged before the High Court.

Key Issues Considered by the Court

1. Whether the Trial Court Rightly Invoked Section 319 CrPC
   • Section 319 CrPC empowers the court to summon additional accused if evidence before it suggests their involvement.
   • The High Court emphasized that summoning under this section requires “more than a prima facie case” and must be based on strong and cogent reasons, as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92.
2. Mistaken Identity and Lack of Conclusive Evidence
   • The High Court noted discrepancies regarding the identity of Rinku @ Goli, as there were multiple individuals named Rinku in the case.
   • Mobile tower location evidence placed Rinku son of Krishan 15 km away from the crime scene, supporting his claim of innocence.
   • The court found that the trial court had failed to critically assess the evidence before summoning the petitioners.
3. Failure to Consider Police Investigation Reports
   • The police had filed reports stating that both petitioners were not involved in the crime.
   • The trial court did not provide sufficient reasoning to disregard these findings.
4. Standard of Proof for Summoning Additional Accused
   • The court reiterated that the test for invoking Section 319 CrPC is higher than the one applied at the time of framing charges.
   • A mere mention of the accused in the witness deposition does not justify summoning unless supported by strong corroborative evidence.

Court’s Ruling and Directions:

The High Court set aside the trial court’s summoning order, holding it to be legally flawed and perverse. However, it remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that:

• The trial court must reassess the material on record.
• The identity of the accused must be ascertained before passing a fresh order.
• The decision must align with the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthening Due Process
   • The ruling reinforces the need for judicial prudence in exercising discretionary powers under Section 319 CrPC.
   • It prevents wrongful prosecution based on ambiguous or unverified allegations.
2. Role of Investigative Reports
   • Police investigation findings carry significant evidentiary value and must not be ignored without substantial reasons.
3. Higher Standard for Summoning Additional Accused
   • The judgment upholds the principle that summoning an accused must be based on clear and compelling evidence beyond mere probability.

Conclusion:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in Rinku @ Goli & Hardeep v. State of Haryana & Anr. serves as a vital precedent in curbing arbitrary use of Section 319 CrPC. By insisting on rigorous judicial scrutiny before summoning additional accused, the ruling upholds fundamental principles of justice and fair trial. The case also highlights the importance of correctly identifying accused persons to prevent wrongful prosecution, ensuring that only individuals with demonstrable culpability face trial.

References:

1. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 319.
3. Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRR-2435-2022 & CRR-1748-2023, Order dated 04.02.2025.