Mere Reiteration of FIR Allegations Insufficient to Summon Additional Accused: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has fortified the threshold for summoning additional accused, ruling that a mere mechanical repetition of FIR allegations during trial evidence fails the stringent legal test required to expand a criminal prosecution. Setting aside a trial court order, the Court emphasized that judicial power to summon persons not originally charge-sheeted must be exercised only upon the discovery of fresh, cogent, and strong evidence that exceeds the standard of a prima facie case.

Justice Manisha Batra presided over the revision petitions challenging the summoning of four relatives in an abetment to suicide case. The Court evaluated whether the testimony of a complainant, which simply mirrored the initial FIR, could satisfy the 'extraordinary' power vested under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023).

High Threshold for Section 319 Powers

The Court observed that the power to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty is discretionary and extraordinary, intended to ensure the real perpetrators do not escape, yet it must be used sparingly. Referencing the landmark ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab ( "(2014) 3 SCC 92": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 496), the Bench noted that the degree of satisfaction required to summon an additional accused is much higher than that required at the stage of framing charges. The evidence must be strong enough that, if left unrebutted, it would likely lead to a conviction.

Distinguishing General Harassment from Abetment

Examining the merits of the case involving Section 306 of the IPC, the Court clarified that ordinary domestic discord or vague allegations of harassment do not automatically constitute abetment under Section 107 of the IPC. The Bench highlighted that the prosecution must demonstrate a positive act of instigation or intentional aid proximate to the time of the suicide.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...mere allegations of harassment or ordinary domestic discord, in the absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional conduct having a proximate nexus with the commission of suicide, would not constitute the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC... The evidence led during trial does not reach beyond the omnibus and general allegations already levelled in the FIR."

Court's Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.11.2019, to the extent it directs summoning of the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The present revision petitions are accordingly allowed. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case."

Key Takeaways:

Fresh Evidence Mandatory for Summoning

Summoning an additional accused requires more than just repeating FIR claims; fresh, strong, and cogent evidence must emerge during the trial to justify such a move. 

Higher Satisfaction Threshold

Trial courts must record a specific level of satisfaction that is higher than the prima facie standard used for framing charges but short of the certainty needed for conviction. 

Abetment Requires Active Instigation

For an offence under Section 306, the law requires proof of active instigation or intentional aid; vague 'omnibus' allegations against relatives are insufficient to sustain a trial. 

Ratio Decidendi:

The power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary jurisdiction that cannot be exercised in a mechanical or casual manner based on the mere repetition of FIR allegations in a witness's examination-in-chief. To summon an additional accused, the evidence must meet a higher threshold of 'strong and cogent' material that suggests a probability of complicity higher than the standard required for framing charges against existing accused.
 

Background:

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2018 following the suicide of a woman, Raj Rani. The complainant alleged that the deceased was harassed by her husband and his relatives over his drug addiction and financial demands. During the police investigation, inquiries by the DSP and higher officials found the petitioners (the brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and parents-in-law) innocent, placing them in Column No. 2 of the final report. Only the husband was sent for trial. However, during the trial, the complainant (PW-1) reiterated the FIR allegations, prompting the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.. The Trial Court allowed the application, leading to the current revision petitions. The High Court ultimately found that the trial court failed to examine the higher threshold prescribed in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab ( "(2014) 3 SCC 92": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 496) and Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and others ( "(2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 321": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 1262), noting that the petitioners had actually assisted in taking the deceased to the hospital, which contradicted the theory of intentional abetment.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRR No. 469 of 2020 (O&M)
Case Title: Balwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab; Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate for the complainant

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 147