Plea of Alibi No Bar to Summoning under Section 319 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld Court's power of summoning under Section 319 of CrPC of additional accused, even if investigation agencies found them innocent. The High Court ruled that a plea of alibi is a matter for trial and cannot block summoning under Section 319. The Bench emphasized that the testimony of an injured witness provides the 'strong and cogent' evidence necessary to bring a previously exonerated individual back to the dock.

Justice Manisha Batra presided over the matter, evaluating the legality of a trial court's decision to summon an individual who had been placed in Column No. 2 of the police report. The petitioner had challenged the summoning orders under Section 319 CrPC, arguing that his presence at a polytechnic college during the time of the alleged assault constituted a definitive alibi that the trial court failed to consider.

Key Takeaways

Trial Testimony Overrides Investigation Reports

Evidence surfaced during trial, particularly from injured witnesses, carries greater weight for summoning additional accused than the findings of the investigating agency.

Alibi is a Matter of Trial

Claims of being present elsewhere at the time of the crime (alibi) cannot be conclusively decided at the summoning stage or in inherent jurisdiction proceedings; they must be tested during the trial.

Standard for Section 319

Summoning requires more than a prima facie case for framing charges, but does not necessitate absolute certainty of conviction, striking a balance to ensure real perpetrators do not escape.

Scope of Summoning under Section 319 CrPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the expansive yet discretionary nature of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the landmark rulings 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), the Bench noted that while the power is extraordinary and to be used sparingly, it is essential for the proper administration of criminal justice.

The Punjab and Haryana HighCourt explained that_"The fact that the name of the petitioner was placed in column No.2 by the investigating agency does not, by itself, furnish a ground for interference, as the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised on the basis of evidence which subsequently comes before the trial Court. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner is also a matter which requires appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C."_

Ratio

The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an enabling provision to ensure the 'real truth' is found and the guilty do not go unpunished due to investigative lapses. A person named in the FIR and attributed a specific role by an injured witness during trial can be summoned as an additional accused, notwithstanding a police report exonerating them or a pending plea of alibi, provided the evidence is strong, cogent, and more than a mere probability of complicity.

Background

The case originated from an FIR registered in 2007 under Sections 323, 324, and 34 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others attacked him and his father with sticks and gandasas. Although the petitioner was named in the FIR, the police investigation placed him in Column No. 2, effectively not charge-sheeting him. During the trial, an injured witness (PW1) specifically identified the petitioner and his role in the assault.

Following a protracted procedural history involving multiple revisions and remands, the trial court eventually summoned the petitioner on February 8, 2019. The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing Jamin and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ( "2025 INSC 330": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 131) and another precedent, arguing false implication and alibi. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court distinguished Jamin and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ( "2025 INSC 330": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 131), noting that in this instance, the specific attribution of a blow by an injured witness met the high evidentiary threshold required by law.

Case Details:

Case No.: CRM-M-12265-2019 (O&M)

Case Title: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab; Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate; Mr. Ankit Chaudhary, Advocate; Mr. Anil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Garg, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 19303