The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not contingent upon conclusive proof, but on strong prima facie evidence emerging during trial proceedings. This judgment clarifies the threshold for invoking extraordinary judicial powers to ensure no guilty party escapes prosecution due to investigative oversight.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ramanjit Kaur @ Alka Rani, was named as an accused in FIR No. 08 dated 21.01.2020 registered at Police Station Sadar, Khanna, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. The FIR alleged a fraudulent scheme to secure emigration to Canada by demanding substantial sums from three victims: Sukhchain Singh, Sarabjit Singh, and Harinder Singh. The main accused, Amrit Singh Sohal @ Sukha, was arrested and is currently facing trial. The petitioner, his mother, was not arrested or charge-sheeted but was named in Column No. 2 of the challan report as a person under investigation.
Key Facts
- The victims were promised work visas to Canada in exchange for Rs. 16 lakhs per person
- In March 2019, Rs. 2 lakhs each was paid by Sukhchain Singh and Sarabjit Singh; Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by Harinder Singh
- In October 2019, an additional Rs. 5 lakhs each was extracted from all three victims
- The accused secured blank stamped papers with victims’ signatures on multiple occasions
- The victims were never sent abroad and no money was refunded
- During investigation, the petitioner was found not directly involved and was not arrested
- The challan was filed only against Amrit Singh Sohal, Kulwinder Singh, and Baldev Singh
Procedural History
- 21.01.2020: FIR registered at PS Sadar, Khanna
- 2020-2025: Investigation conducted; petitioner not arrested or charge-sheeted
- 18.09.2025: Application under Section 319 CrPC filed by prosecution seeking summoning of petitioner, Daljit Kaur, and Prabhjot Singh as additional accused
- 18.09.2025: Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khanna, partly allowed the application and ordered summoning of the petitioner
- 12.06.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the summoning order
- 08.05.2026: Judgment reserved
- 12.05.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that she was exonerated during investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan
- Contended that no specific act or overt conduct was attributed to her
- Asserted that her inclusion was motivated by harassment, being the mother of the main accused
- Claimed the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind and ignored investigative findings
For the Respondent-State
- Submitted that victims Sukhchain Singh and Sarabjit Singh, as prosecution witnesses, deposed in examination-in-chief that the petitioner was present during demand for money
- Stated that the victims testified she received Rs. 2 lakhs each from them directly
- Argued that the evidence on record, even at the preliminary stage, established a prima facie case against her
- Maintained that the investigating agency’s opinion is tentative and does not bind the Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 18.09.2025 summoning her as an additional accused, and dismissal of the application under Section 319 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
Can a Court summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure solely on the basis of evidence recorded during examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, even if the investigating agency had earlier exonerated the person and did not include them in the charge sheet?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the investigative report which concluded she had no role in the offence and was placed in Column No. 2 of the challan. It was argued that the Magistrate erred in disregarding this finding and that summoning her without specific allegations of conduct violated principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the principle that mere association with an accused, especially familial, cannot substitute for evidence of participation. The counsel contended that the Court must not act on suspicion or speculation, and that the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC requires more than vague testimony.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the victims’ deposition in examination-in-chief clearly implicated the petitioner. Their testimony stated she was present during demand for money and received cash payments directly. The State emphasized that Section 319 CrPC empowers the Court to act on evidence recorded in court, irrespective of the investigating agency’s opinion. It was argued that the Court’s duty is to uncover truth, and that the law permits summoning of persons not charge-sheeted if evidence during trial reveals their involvement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 319 CrPC and the jurisprudence developed under it, particularly in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 18 SCC 321. It held that the power under Section 319 is discretionary, extraordinary, and must be exercised sparingly. However, it is not rendered inoperative merely because the investigating agency has exonerated a person.
"The opinion of the investigating agency is only tentative and the Court is not denuded of its statutory powers to summon any person who appears, from the evidence recorded during trial, to have committed an offence."
The Court clarified that the word "evidence" under Section 319 refers exclusively to material presented before the Court during trial, not to investigation reports or police opinions. Crucially, the Court held that evidence recorded in examination-in-chief, even before cross-examination, is sufficient to trigger the power under Section 319, provided it is strong and cogent.
"The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as has been established at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction."
The Court found that the victims’ testimony - specifically that the petitioner was present, participated in demanding Rs. 16 lakhs, and received cash payments - met this threshold. The fact that she was not arrested or charge-sheeted was irrelevant, as the law explicitly permits the Court to act on evidence emerging during trial. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner’s role was passive or incidental, noting that receiving money on behalf of the main accused constitutes active participation in the offence.
The Court further emphasized that the Magistrate was not required to weigh the evidence on merits or assess credibility at this stage. The mere existence of credible, specific, and consistent testimony from victims was sufficient to justify summoning.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 18.09.2025 summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The Court held that the evidence recorded during examination-in-chief of the victims established a strong prima facie case against her, satisfying the legal threshold under Section 319. The petitioner shall now face trial as an additional accused alongside the existing accused.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Examination-in-Chief Alone Can Trigger Section 319 CrPC
- Practitioners must now treat examination-in-chief testimony as a potential trigger for summoning additional accused, even before cross-examination
- Defence counsel cannot rely on investigative exoneration to oppose summoning if prosecution witnesses testify to involvement
- Prosecution should strategically highlight any witness testimony implicating non-charge-sheeted persons during trial
Investigative Opinion Is Not Binding on Courts
- Police reports or closure reports exonerating a person do not preclude judicial action under Section 319
- Courts are empowered to act independently based on evidence emerging in court
- Lawyers must prepare for the possibility that a person cleared by police may still be summoned if testimony during trial changes
Threshold for Summoning Is Higher Than Prima Facie, Lower Than Conviction
- The standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but requires evidence that is more than mere suspicion or probability
- Evidence must be strong and cogent - vague or contradictory testimony will not suffice
- Courts must avoid casual or mechanical summoning; each case requires independent scrutiny of the record
