Simarjit Kaur and Anr v. State of Punjab

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

¶1Through the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned summoning order dated 14.10.2022, wherethrough, the learned Magistrate concerned has, after allowing the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., as preferred by the respondent No.2/complainant, summoned the petitioners as additional accused to face trial along with other accused, in FIR No.27 dated 28.04.2021, under Sections 323/324/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Ajitwal, District Moga. In addition, the petitioners have also challenged the verdict dated 03.02.2023, whereby, the learned revisional court concerned has dismissed the statutory revision petition, as preferred before it by the petitioners, against the impugned summoning order dated 14.10.2022.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo2 orderso(supra),oprimarilyoonotheogroundothat,otheoimpugnedosummoning proceedingsoareotaintedowithoaofundamentalolegalodefect,oasodespiteothere beingoabsolutelyonoocaseomadeooutoagainstotheopetitioners,obasedouponothe evidence,oasoadducedobeforeotheolearnedotrialoCourtoconcerned,oyetotheyohave erroneouslyobeenosummonedotoofaceotrial.oInofact,otheoapplication,oasomoved underoSectiono319oofotheoCr.P.C,owasonothingobutoaosheeroabuseoofothe processoofolaw.oo FACTUALoMATRIX

¶3The o genesis o of o the o prosecution o case o is o embodied o in o the statementomadeobyorespondentoNo.2/complainant-oMakhanoSingh,oalleging thereinothat,ooneoTehaloSinghoalongowithohisosonoandodaughterso(present petitioners)omadeoassaultouponohim.oTheorelevantoextractoofohisostatement,oas encapsulatedoinotheoFinaloReporto(AnnexureoP-4),oisoextractedohereinafter:- "…Ono26.04.2021,oatoabouto07:15oa.m.,oIowasogoingofromomyohouse towardsomyoouteroWarra.oIowasostilloinotheostreet,othenomyoneighbour TehaloSinghosonoofoDharamoSingh,owhoowasoarmedowithospade,oand, DheeraoSingh,owhoowasoarmedowithoDang,owereostandingooutside theirohouse.oOnoseeingomeocoming,obothoofothemostartedoabusingome, and,osaidothatotodayowilloteachoyouoaolessonoforoshiftingotheostones fromoourostreet.oInotheomeantime,otwoodaughtersoofoTehaloSinghoalso cameooutoofotheirohouseoandostartedoabusingome.oThenoDhiraoSingh sonoofoTehaloSinghocaughtoholdomeofromomyoarms,owhereupon,oTehal Singhogaveoaospadeoblowotowardsomyohead,owhichohitoonomy forehead,oand,othenohisodaughtersocaughtoholdomyobeardoandostarted abusingome.oThenoDhiraoSinghopushedomeoandoalsoogaveoaoDang blow,owhichohit oonomy orightoknee. oUponothis, oIoraisedoalarm "Maarta-Maarta"oandopeopleogatheredothere,owhicholedotootheoabove saidopersonsorunningoawayofromotheospotoalongowithotheirorespective weapons.oOnohearingoalarm,omyouncleoWasakhaoSinghocameoatothe spotoandoonoseeingobloodooozingoout ofrom omyohead,oheoarranged conveyance oand ogotomeoadmittedoat otheoCiviloHospital,oDhudike, DEVINDER YADAV whereoIoamounderotreatment.oTheomotiveobehindotheooccurrenceois CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo3 thatotheyoha o&utostonesoinotheostreet,owhi'howereo'reatingo&rob"em whi"eo&assingofromotheostreetoonomotor'y'"eoorotra'tor....-o

¶4The hereinabove extracted statement led to registration of the present FIR against co-accused Tehal Singh and Dheera Singh.

¶5It would be worth to record here that, though allegations against the present petitioners were also levelled by the respondent No.2/ complainant in his statement (supra), however, as is apparent from the "police proceedings" portion of the FIR (supra), the present petitioners were found innocent, rather a finding has been recorded therein that they have deliberately been entangled in the instant case.

¶6Aggrieved by non arraying of the present petitioners as accused in the present FIR, the respondent No.2/complainant moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, thereby seeking nomination of present petitioners as accused in the present FIR. Though this application was duly inquired into, however, again a conclusion qua innocence of the present petitioners was recorded by the S.H.O. concerned in his report (Annexure P-3). The relevant extract of report (Annexure P-3) is reproduced hereinafter:- "15. Conclusion: In the initial investigation, Tehal Singh, Dhira Singh have been nominated in the above said case and his both daughters namely Simarjit Kaur and Karamveer Kaur are unmarried. Due to the party faction in the village, their names have been deliberately mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. They are not found involved in the above said case….."

¶7Therefore, after completion of investigation, since no complicity of the petitioners could surface, the Final Report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was presented only against co-accused Tehal Singh and Randhir Singh @ Dhira before the learned trial Court, who have resultantly CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo4 been subjectedotoofaceotrial,othroughoframingoofochargesoagainstothem.

¶8WhatocausedogrievanceotootheorespondentoNo.2/complainant, wasotheopetitionersobecomingodeclaredoinnocentobyotheoinvestigatingoofficer andoconsequently,oheowasodrivenoto,othrougho ublico rosecutor,oinstituteoan applicationoundero!ectiono"#$oofotheo%r. .%.,otherebyosee&ingosummoningoof theopresentopetitionersoasoadditionaloaccused.

¶9The learned trial Court concerned, through drawing the impugned order dated 14.10.2022, allowed the application (supra) and summoned the petitioners to face trial. The summoning of the petitioners was anchored upon the learned trial Court concerned gauging the ocular testimony of complainant/respondent No.2 to be sufficient for the relevant purpose. #'. (hereafter,othoughotheoimpugnedoordero)supra*owasoassailedoby theopetitionersothroughoinstitutingoaorevisionopetitionothereagainstobeforeothe learnedo+dditionalo!essionso,udge,o-oga,ohowever,otheiroeffortsoreapedono fruits,oasotheorevisionopetitionowasodismissedobyotheolatterovideoverdictodated '".'2.2'2". ##. %onsequently,otheopetitioners,owhooareoaggrievedofromotheir summoning,oareobeforeothiso%ourt,othroughotheoinstantopetition. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

¶12The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his assailing the impugned summoning order(s), has argued that despite the petitioners being declared innocent by the investigating officer, and, despite there being lack of any cogent evidence even remotely indicative of petitioners' complicity, yet the learned courts below have erred in summoning the petitioners, merely on a flimsy ground that, they had played active role in the alleged CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo5 occurrence.

¶13The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that, apart from the initial police investigation, which led to the petitioners becoming exculpated in the FIR, the innocence of the petitioners also garners strength from the report (Annexure P-3), which was drawn after making investigation in the complaint made by the respondent No.2/ complainant, and wherein, a specific conclusion has been recorded that the petitioners have deliberately been entangled in the alleged occurrence, owing to party faction in the village concerned.

¶14Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned summoning order has been drawn in gross misinterpretation of the guidelines, as issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of �������� � ����� � ��� � ����� � �� � ������ � ��� � �������, o������ �� � ! �!��"���#��$�%� SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL, AND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2/COMPLAINANT

¶15Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant, has opposed the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. By placing heavy reliance upon the statement(s) of the complainant/respondent No.2, wherein names of the petitioners have been disclosed as assailants, he has justified the summoning of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the roles of the petitioners become unveiled in the said statement(s). Therefore, a prayer is made that the instant petition be dismissed, being devoid of merits. ANALYSIS

¶16.efore o embar&ing o upon o the o process o of oevaluating o the CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo6 contentionsoraisedobyotheolearnedocounselsoforotheocontestingolitigants,oand thereupon,openningodownoanyoopinionouponotheovalidityoofotheoimpugned summoningoorder)s*,oitoisodeemedoimperativeotoofirstocaptureoanooverviewoof someosignificantolegalopropositions.

¶17The scope of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been considered and enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court also, in a catena of judgments, whereupon, it has been held that, during the pendency of inquiry or trial, the trial Court has jurisdiction to proceed against a person for the offence, which he appears to have committed, if, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that such person, not being the accused, has committed any offence, for which he could be tried together with the accused, under Section 319(1) of the Cr.P.C.

¶18The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sohan Lal vs State of Rajasthan", AIR 1990 SC 2158, while explaining the scope of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., has held that, this Section empowers the trial Court to proceed against a person, not being the accused, "appearing to be guilty" of an offence. The relevant extract of Sohan Lal's judgment is extracted hereinafter:- "This section empowers the Court to proceed against persons not being the accused appearing to be guilty of offence. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section provide for a situation when a Court hearing a case against certain accused person finds from the evidence that some person or persons, other than the accused before it is or are also connected in this very offence or any connected offence; and it empowers the court to proceed against such person or persons for the offence which he or they appears or appear to have committed and issue process for the purpose. It provides that the cognizance against newly added accused is deemed to have been taken in the CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo7 sameomanneroinowhichocognizanceowasofirstotakenoofotheooffence againstotheoearlieroaccused.oItonaturallyodealsowithoaomatteroarising fromotheocourseoofotheoproceedingoalreadyoinitiated.oTheoscopeoofothe section o is o wide o enough o to o include o cases o instituted o on o private complaint."o

¶19Moreover,oino�������������&��'�����������(�theoConstitution BenchoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtohas,obesidesomakingoconsideration quaotheodegreeoofosatisfactionorequiredotooinvokeotheoprovisionsoofoSection 319oofotheoCr.P.C.otooarraignoanoaccused,oalsoorenderedoanoanswerothereto. Theorelevantoextractoofothisojudgmentoisoreproducedohereinafter:- "85.oThus,oinoviewoofotheoabove,oweoholdothatopowerounderoSection 319 o Cr.P.C. o can o be o exercised o at o the o stage o of o completion o of examinationoinochiefoandocourtodoesonotoneedotoowaitotillotheosaid evidenceoisotestedoonocross-examinationoforoitoisotheosatisfactionoof theocourtowhichocanobeogatheredofromotheoreasonsorecordedobyothe court,oinorespectoofocomplicityoofosomeootheroperson(s),onotofacingothe trialoinotheooffence.o Q.o(iv)oWhatoisotheodegreeoofosatisfactionorequiredoforoinvokingothe powerounderoSectiono319oCr.P.C.?o

86.oSectiono319(1)oCr.P.C.oempowersotheocourtotooproceedoagainst otheropersonsowhooappearotoobeoguiltyoofooffence,othoughonotoan accusedobeforeotheocourt. Theowordo"appear"omeanso"clearotootheocomprehension",ooroaophrase nearoto,oifonotosynonymousowitho"proved".oItoimpartsoaolesserodegree ofoprobabilityothanoproof.o

87.oIn oPyareoLaloBhargavaov.oTheoStateoofoRajasthan,oAIRo1963 Supreme o Court o 1094, o a o four-Judge o Bench o of o this o Court o was concernedowithotheomeaningoofotheowordo`appear'.oTheocourtoheld thatotheoappropriateomeaningoofotheowordo`appears'oiso`seems'.oIt importsoaolesserodegreeoofoprobabilityothanoproof.oInoRamoSingho& Ors.ov.oRamoNiwaso&oAnr.,o2009(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o501o:o2009(4) RecentoApexoJudgmentso(R.A.J.)o261o:o(2009)14oSCCo25,oaotwo-JudgeoBenchoofothisoCourtowasoagainorequiredotooexamineothe importanceoofotheowordo`appear'oasoappearingoinotheoSection.oThe CourtoheldothatoforotheofulfillmentoofotheoconditionothatoitoappearsotoDEVINDER YADAV CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo8 theocourtothatoaopersonohadocommittedoanooffence,otheocourtomust satisfyoitselfoaboutotheoexistenceoofoanoexceptionalocircumstance enabling oit o too exercise oan o extraordinary o jurisdiction.o What o is, therefore,onecessaryoforotheocourtoisotooarriveoatoaosatisfactionothat theoevidenceoadducedoonobehalfoofotheoprosecution,oifounrebutted, mayoleadotooconvictionoofotheopersonsosoughtotoobeoaddedoasoan accusedoinotheocase.

88.oAtotheotimeoofotakingocognizance,otheocourtohasotooseeowhetheroa primaofacieocaseoisomadeooutotooproceedoagainstotheoaccused.oUnder Sectiono319oCr.P.C.,othoughotheotestoofoprimaofacieocaseoisotheosame, theodegreeoofosatisfactionothatoisorequiredoisomuchostricter.oAotwo-JudgeoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoVikasov.oStateoofoRajasthan,o2013(4) RCRo(Criminal)o948o:o2013(6)oRecentoApexoJudgmentso(R.A.J.)o356o: 2013(11)oSCALEo23,oheldothatoonotheoobjectiveosatisfactionoofothe court o a o person o may o be o `arrested' o or o `summoned', o as o the circumstancesoofotheocaseomayorequire,oifoitoappearsofromothe evidenceothatoanyosuchopersononotobeingotheoaccusedohasocommitted anooffenceoforowhichosuchopersonocouldobeotriedotogetherowithothe alreadyoarraignedoaccusedopersons.

89.oInoRajendraoSingho(Supra),otheoCourtoobservedo: "Beoitonoted,otheocourtoneedonotobeosatisfiedothatoheohas committedoanooffence.oItoneedoonlyoappearotooitothatoheohas committedoanooffence.oInootherowords,ofromotheoevidenceoit needoonlyoappearotooitothatosomeoneoelseohasocommittedoan offence,otooexerciseojurisdictionounderoSectiono319oofothe Code.oEvenothen,oitohasoaodiscretiononototooproceed,osinceothe expressionousedoiso"may"oandonoto"shall".oTheolegislature apparentlyowantedotooleaveothatodiscretionotootheotrialocourtoso asotooenableoitotooexerciseoitsojurisdictionounderothisosection. Theoexpressiono"appears"oindicatesoanoapplicationoofomindoby theocourtotootheoevidenceothatohasocomeobeforeoitoandothen takingoaodecisionotooproceedounderoSectiono319oofotheoCodeoor not."o

90.oInoMohd.oShafio(Supra),othisoCourtoheldothatoitoisoevidentothat beforeoaocourtoexercisesoitsodiscretionaryojurisdictionoinotermsoof Sectiono319oCr.P.C.,oitomustoarriveoatoaosatisfactionothatothereoexists aopossibilityothatotheoaccusedosoosummonedoinoallolikelihoodowouldobe CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo9 convicted.

91.oInoSarabjitoSingho&oAnr.ov.oStateoofoPunjabo&oAnr.,o2009(3)oRCR (Criminal)o388o:o2009(4)oRecentoApexoJudgmentso(R.A.J.)o144o, whileoexplainingotheoscopeoofoSectiono319oCr.P.C.,oaotwo-Judge BenchoofothisoCourtoobservedo: "....Forotheoaforementionedopurpose,otheocourtsoareorequired tooapplyostringentotests;ooneoofotheotestsobeingowhether evidenceoonorecordoisosuchowhichowouldoreasonablyoleadoto convictionoofotheopersonosoughtotoobeosummoned.....Whereas theotestoofoprimaofacieocaseomayobeosufficientoforotaking cognizanceoofoanooffenceoatotheostageoofoframingoofocharge,othe courtomustobeosatisfiedothatothereoexistsoaostrongosuspicion. WhileoframingochargeoinotermsoofoSectiono227oofotheoCode,othe courtomustoconsiderotheoentireomaterialsoonorecordotooformoan opinionothatotheoevidenceoifounrebuttedowouldoleadotooa judgmentoofoconviction.oWhetheroaohigherostandardobeosetoup forotheopurposeoofoinvokingotheojurisdictionounderoSectiono319 ofotheoCodeoisotheoquestion.oTheoanswerotootheseoquestions should o be o rendered o in o the o affirmative. o Unless o a o higher standardoforotheopurposeoofoformingoanoopinionotoosummonoa personoasoanoadditionaloaccusedoisolaidodown,otheoingredients thereofoviz.o(i)oanoextraordinaryocase,oando(ii)oaocaseofor sparinglyo(sicosparing)oexerciseoofojurisdiction,owouldonotobe satisfied."o(Emphasisoadded)o

92.oInoBrindabanoDaso&oOrs.ov.oStateoofoWestoBengal,o2009(1)oRCR (Criminal)o672o:o2009(1)oRecentoApexoJudgmentso(R.A.J.)o400o,oa two-JudgeoBenchoofothisoCourtotookoaosimilaroviewoobservingothatothe courtoisorequiredotooconsiderowhetherosuchoevidenceowouldobe sufficientotooconvictotheopersonobeingosummoned.oSinceoissuanceoof summonsounderoSectiono319oCr.P.C.oentailsoaodeonovootrialoandoa largeonumberoofowitnessesomayohaveobeenoexaminedoandotheirore-examinationocouldoprejudiceotheoprosecutionoandodelayotheotrial,othe trialocourtohasotooexerciseosuchodiscretionowithogreatocareoand perspicacity.oAosimilaroviewohasobeenore-iteratedobyothisoCourtoin MichaeloMachadoo&oAnr.ov.oCentraloBureauoofoInvestigationo&oOrs., 2000(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o75o.

93.oHowever,othereoisoaoseriesoofocasesowhereinothisoCourtowhile CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo10 dealingowithotheoprovisionsoofoSectionso227,o228,o239,o240,o241,o242 ando245oCr.P.C.,ohasoconsistentlyoheldothatotheocourtoatotheostageoof framingoofotheochargeohasotooapplyoitsomindotootheoquestionowhether oronotothereoisoanyogroundoforopresumingotheocommissionoofoan offenceobyotheoaccused.oTheocourtohasotooseeoasotoowhetherothe materialobroughtoonorecordoreasonablyoconnectotheoaccusedowithothe offence.oNothingomoreoisorequiredotoobeoenquiredointo.oWhileodealing withotheoaforesaidoprovisions,otheotestoofoprimaofacieocaseoisotoobe applied.oTheoCourtohasotoofindooutowhetherotheomaterialsoofferedoby theoprosecutionotoobeoadducedoasoevidenceoareosufficientoforotheocourt tooproceedoagainstotheoaccusedofurther.o(Vide:oStateoofoKarnatakaov. L.oMunishwamyo&oOrs.,oAIRo1977oSupremeoCourto1489;oAlloIndia BankoOfficers'oConfederationoetc.ov.oUnionoofoIndiao&oOrs.,oAIR 1989oSupremeoCourto2045;oStreeoAtyacharoVirodhioParishadov.oDilip NathumaloChordia,o(1989)o1oSCCo715;oStateoofoM.P.ov.oDr.oKrishna ChandraoSaksena,o1997(1)oRCRo(Criminal)o556o:o(1996)o11oSCC 439;oandoStateoofoM.P.ov.oMohanoLaloSoni,o2000(3)oRCRo(Criminal) 452o).

94.oInoDilawaroBabuoKuraneov.oStateoofoMaharashtra,o2002(1)oRCR (Criminal)o451,othisoCourtowhileodealingowithotheoprovisionsoof Sectionso227oando228oCr.P.C.,oplacedoaoveryoheavyorelianceoonothe earlierojudgmentoofothisoCourtoinoUnionoofoIndiaov.oPrafullaoKumar Samalo&oAnr.,oAIRo1979oSupremeoCourto366oandoheldothatowhile consideringotheoquestionoofoframingotheocharges,otheocourtomay weighotheoevidenceoforotheolimitedopurposeoofofindingooutowhetheroor notoaoprimaofacieocaseoagainstotheoaccusedohasobeenomadeooutoand whetherotheomaterialsoplacedobeforeothisoCourtodiscloseograve suspicion o against o the o accused o which o has o not o been o properly explained.oInosuchoanoeventuality,otheocourtoisojustifiedoinoframingothe chargesoandoproceedingowithotheotrial.oTheocourtohasotooconsiderothe broadoprobabilitiesoofotheocase,otheototaloeffectoofotheoevidenceoand theodocumentsoproducedobeforeotheocourtobutocourtoshouldonotomake aorovingoenquiryointootheoprosoandoconsoofotheomatteroandoweigh evidenceoasoifoitoisoconductingoaotrial.

95.oInoSureshov.oStateoofoMaharashtra,o2001(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o278, thisoCourtoafterotakingonoteoofotheoearlierojudgmentsoin oNiranjan SinghoKaramoSinghoPunjabiov.oJitendraoBhimrajoBijjaya,o1991(1) CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo11 RCRo(Criminal)o89oandoStateoofoMaharashtraov.oPriyaoSharan Maharaj,o1997(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o634,oheldoasoundero: "9.....atotheostageoofoSectionso227oando228otheoCourtois requiredotooevaluateotheomaterialoandodocumentsoonorecord withoaoviewotoofindingooutoifotheofactsoemergingotherefrom takenoatotheirofaceovalueodiscloseotheoexistenceoofoallothe ingredientsoconstitutingotheoallegedooffence.oTheoCourtomay, forothisolimitedopurpose,osiftotheoevidenceoasoitocannotobe expectedoevenoatothatoinitialostageotooacceptoallothatothe prosecutionostatesoasogospelotruthoevenoifoitoisoopposedoto common o sense o or o the o broad o probabilities o of o the o case. Therefore,oatotheostageoofoframingoofotheochargeotheoCourtohas tooconsiderotheomaterialowithoaoviewotoofindooutoifothereois groundoforopresumingothatotheoaccusedohasocommittedothe offenceoorothatothereoisonotosufficientogroundoforoproceeding againstohimoandonotoforotheopurposeoofoarrivingoatothe conclusionothatoitoisonotolikelyotooleadotooaoconviction." (Emphasisosupplied)o

96.oSimilarlyoinoStateoofoBiharov.oRameshoSingh,oAIRo1977oSupreme Courto2018,owhileodealingowithotheoissue,othisoCourtoheldo: ".....IfotheoevidenceowhichotheoProsecutoroproposesotooadduce tooproveotheoguiltoofotheoaccusedoevenoifofullyoacceptedobefore itoisochallengedoinocross-examinationoororebuttedobyothe defence o evidence,o if oany, o cannoto show othato theo accused committedotheooffence,othenothereowillobeonoosufficientoground foroproceedingowithotheotrial...…"

¶97o In oPalanisamy o Gounder o & o Anr. o v. o State, o represented o by InspectoroofoPolice,o2006(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o235o:o(2005)o12oSCC 327,othisoCourtodeprecatedotheopracticeoofoinvokingotheopowerounder Sectiono319oCr.P.C.ojustotooconductoaofishingoinquiry,oasoinothatocase, theotrialocourtoexercisedothatopowerojustotoofindooutotheorealotruth, thoughothereowasonoovalidogroundotooproceedoagainstotheoperson summonedobyotheocourt.

98.oPowerounderoSectiono319oCr.P.C.oisoaodiscretionaryoandoan extra-oordinaryopower.oItoisotoobeoexercisedosparinglyoandoonlyoin thoseocasesowhereotheocircumstancesoofotheocaseosoowarrant.oItoisonot toobeoexercisedobecauseotheoMagistrateoorotheoSessionsoJudgeoisoof CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo12 theoopinionothatosomeootheropersonomayoalsoobeoguiltyoofocommitting thatooffence.oOnlyowhereostrongoandocogentoevidenceooccursoagainst aopersonofromotheoevidenceoledobeforeotheocourtothatosuchopower shouldobeoexercisedoandonotoinoaocasualoandocavalieromanner.

99.oThus,oweoholdothatothoughoonlyoaoprimaofacieocaseoisotoobe establishedofromotheoevidenceoledobeforeotheocourtonotonecessarily testedoonotheoanviloofoCross-Examination,oitorequiresomuchostronger evidenceothanomereoprobabilityoofohisocomplicity.oTheotestothatohasoto beoappliedoisooneowhichoisomoreothanoprimaofacieocaseoasoexercisedoat theotimeoofoframingoofocharge,obutoshortoofosatisfactionotooanoextent thatotheoevidence,oifogoesounrebutted,owouldoleadotooconviction.oInothe absenceoofosuchosatisfaction,otheocourtoshouldorefrainofromoexercising powerounderoSectiono319oCr.P.C.oInoSectiono319oCr.P.C.otheopurpose ofoprovidingoifo`itoappearsofromotheoevidenceothatoanyopersononot beingotheoaccusedohasocommittedoanyooffence'oisoclearofromothe wordso"forowhichosuchopersonocouldobeotriedotogetherowithothe accused."oTheowordsousedoareonoto`forowhichosuchopersonocouldobe convicted'.oThereois,otherefore,onooscopeoforotheoCourtoactingounder Sectiono319oCr.P.C.otooformoanyoopinionoasotootheoguiltoofothe accused.o

¶20Theohereinaboveodiscussedolegalopropositionsoelucidateothat muchostrongeroevidence,oratherothanomereoprobabilityoofocomplicityoand mere oexistenceoof oprimaofacieo case,oisorequiredotooproceedoagainstoany person,ounderoSectiono319oofotheoCr.P.C.oItoisonowotheosettledopropositionoof lawothat,omereosuspicionocannotoconstituteotheobedrockoforosummoningoofoa person,oinoexerciseoofopowersoconferredobyoSectiono319oofotheoCr.P.C.,orather exerciseoofothisoprovisionomustobeoanchoredouponoexistenceoofocogent evidenceoandonotoinoaocasualoorocavalieromanner.oTheotest,othatohasotoobe applied,oisooneowhichoisomoreothanoprimaofacieocaseoasoexercisedoatotheotime ofoframingoofocharge,obutoshortoofosatisfactionotooanoextentothatotheoevidence, ifogoesounrebutted,owouldoleadotooconviction. CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo13

¶21The prime reason for allowing the instant petition is grooved in the factum that both the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that the entire record is lacking any cogent evidence suggestive of petitioners' culpability.

¶22In the instant case, there is no wrangle that the respondent No.2/complainant had, at the very first instance, i.e. in the FIR, alleged the petitioners to have abused him, and, to have caught hold his beard. However, subsequently when the petitioners were not arrayed as accused in the FIR, owing to them being found innocent, the respondent No.2/complainant moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, thereby seeking nomination of present petitioners as accused in the FIR, on the improved allegations that, apart from catching hold his beard and abusing him, the petitioners had also inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. Strangely enough, the trail of improvements, on the part of the respondent No.2/complainant did not pause here, as, at the time of making testification as PW-1 before the learned trial Court concerned, he chose to adopt and reiterate his initial version as spelt in the FIR, i.e. though he alleged the petitioners to have abused him, and, to have pulled his beard, however, he omitted the allegations qua infliction of injuries to him by the petitioners with their respective weapons. The relevant extract of all the three versions (supra), as narrated by the respondent No.2/complainant, is reproduced hereinafter:- "VERSION IN FIR ….twoo aughtersoofo#eha"o$inghoa"soo'ameooutoofotheirohouse an ostarte oabusingome……..,oan ,othenohiso aughterso'aught ho" omyobear oan ostarte oabusingome….. VERSION IN COMPLAINT ….both daughters of Tehal Singh namely Simarjit Kaur and CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo14 KaramveeroKaur,oinflictedoinjuriesotoomeowithotheirorespective weaponsoinoconnivanceowithoeachoother.oTheoaboveomentioned daughtersoofotheoaccusedocaughtoholdomyobeardoandoabused me….. VERSIONoASoPW-1 ….atothatotimeotwoodaughtersoofoTehaloSinghoalsoocameothere andocaughtoholdoofome,opulledomyobeard…..."o

¶23Therefore,osinceotheorespondentoNo.2/complainantohasomade evidentomaterialoimprovementsoinohisostatementso(supra),owhichohadoformed theobackboneoforosummoningoofotheopetitioners,odespiteothemobeingodeclared innocent,oresultantly,otheosummoningoofotheopetitioners,oonosuchoweakopiece ofoocularotestimony,odoesonotopassotheotest,oasolaidodownoino�������������&� '�����������.oThereohasotoobeomoreothanoaoprimaofacieocase,oasoexercisedoat theotimeoofoframingoofocharge,obutoshortoofosatisfactionotooanoextentothatothe evidence,oifogoesounrebutted,owouldoleadotooconviction.

¶24Moreover,oneitherotheolearnedocourtsobelowohaveoframedoany opinion,onoromadeoanyoconclusionoasotoowhetherothereoisoanyomaterialoto support o the ocontradictory o ocular o testification o of o the o respondent No.2/complainant,owhich othough ohas obecomeoheavily odepended oupon, howeveroisotheosoleoandoweakopieceoofoevidenceobeforeoit,oatotheostageoof passingotheoimpugnedosummoningoorder.

¶25To o the o considered o mind o of o this o Court, o when o the o ocular testimonyoofotheorespondentoNo.2/complainantoisonotosufficientoenoughofor summoning oofotheopetitioners,otheolearned ocourts obelow oshould ohave refrainedofromoexercisingopowerounderoSectiono319oCr.P.C.o FINALoORDER

¶26Foroallotheoreasonso(supra),othisoCourtofindsomeritoinotheoinstant petitionoandoisoconstrainedotooallowotheosame.oConsequently,otheoinstant CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo15 petition is allowed, and, the impugned summoning order dated

14.10.2022, and, the verdict dated 03.02.2023, are set aside.

¶27Needless to say that, the complainant/prosecution agency shall be at liberty to, at a subsequent stage, invoke the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., in case there emerges cogent and convincing evidence warranting summoning of the petitioners to face trial. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

01.12.2023

CRM-M-11021-2023 oooooo1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM-M-11021-2023 Date of Decision: 01.12.2023 SIMARJIT KAUR AND ANR. -Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. -Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Argued by: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Grewal, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant. ***