***

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (ORAL)

1. By this common order, this Court proposes to decide both the petitions, as the same are arisen out of the same FIR and are taken together for disposal.

2. The present criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners, namely, Rajender, Bijender, Sonu, Sunny, Om Parkash and Pritam, challenging the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the present petitioners were ordered to be summoned as additional accused to face trial in the case.

3. The prosecution case, shorn of the facts relating to the connected cross-version, is that on the basis of the statement of injured Wazir Singh, FIR No. 133 dated 03.05.2015 came to be registered against (1) Mita son of Nawab, (2) Fateh Singh son of Ram Lubhaya, (3) Jeeta son of Nawab Chamar (respondent No. 2 herein), (4) Manpreet son of Avtar, (5) Megh Arya, and about 10-15 other persons. During the course of investigation of the said case, the aforesaid accused persons, namely Ajeet alias Jeeta son of Nawab, Manjeet Singh, Manoj and Gurdeep Singh etc, appeared before the Police Post, Bohli on 04.05.2015 and submitted a written complaint alleging atrocities upon members of the Scheduled Caste community by persons belonging to the upper caste.

4. In the said complaint, it was alleged that there was an ongoing dispute between the Scheduled Caste community and Wazir Singh, a Jaat, regarding the land of the Primary Health Centre and the community chopal situated in village Sithana. It was further alleged that though the dispute had earlier been pacified through the intervention of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 28.04.2015, yet on 03.05.2015 at about 6.00 p.m., Wazir Singh allegedly brought a large number of persons in several vehicles, fired in the air, entered the Dalit colony, dragged women out of their houses, assaulted them and caused injuries while uttering caste-based abuses. In the complaint, the following thirteen persons were specifically named as the assailants: (1) Pritam son of Partap Singh, (2) Wazir Singh, (3) Anand son of Mahender, (4) Joginder son of Geeta Ram, (5) Sonu son of Joginder, (6) Satbir son of Dei Ram, (7) Rinku son of Jai Kumar, (8) Deen Dayal son of Subhash, (9) Rajender son of Subhash, (10) Sunny son of Joginder Baraigi, (11) Bajinder son of Mahander, (12) Om Parkash son of Chunni Lal, and (13) Sunny son of Jaggu, besides certain unidentified persons who had allegedly accompanied them. It was further alleged that several members of the Scheduled Caste community sustained injuries in the occurrence.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a cross-case came to be registered and investigation  was  conducted.  Upon  completion  of investigation, the police found sufficient material to present the challan only against (1) Wazir Singh, (2) Anand, (3) Satbir, (4) Joginder and (5) Deen Dayal, whereas the remaining persons named in the complaint, including the present petitioners, were not sent up for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Ajeet Singh son of Nawab Singh as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 03.05.2015 at about 6.00 p.m., Wazir Jaat and Pritam Jaat, along with about 40 other persons, arrived in five vehicles in Hanuman Garh Dalit Basti, village Sithana. As soon as they reached the Dalit Basti, they fired two shots in the air with firearms. He further stated that there was a dispute between the parties regarding possession of the land where an unknown person had fixed a Jelli. According to him, Pritam Jaat, Wazir Jaat, Joginder Bairagi and Satbir Bairagi, who were present in Court, abused the members of the Dalit community by using caste-based remarks, including asking them to come out and using derogatory expressions against them. He further deposed that Joginder Bairagi was carrying a gun in his hand. He also alleged that the accused persons molested the women of their family, caused injuries to them, dragged them by their hair and tore their clothes. PW-1 further stated that Pritam, Wazir Jaat, Jagbir Bairagi, Satbir Bairagi and Anand Jaat, who were present in Court, along with other persons namely Sonu, Bijender, Rajinder, Sunny Sharma, Sunny Bairagi, Om Parkash Sharma and Deen Dayal, who had not been challaned by the police, also gave beatings to them. He further deposed that thereafter they went to the hospital where they were medically examined. He stated that on 04.05.2015 at about 12:50 a.m., he submitted complaint Ex. PA at Police Post Bohli bearing his signatures. He further alleged that the entire incident had taken place in connivance with the police; that the police had intentionally registered a false case against them; and that only after objections were raised against the police proceedings did the police ultimately file the challan against the opposite party. Thereafter, his cross-examination was deferred as learned counsel for the complainant sought to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking summoning of (1) Pritam son of Partap Singh, (2) Sonu son of Joginder, (3) Bijender son of Mahender, (4) Rajender son of Subhash, (5) Sunny son of Om Parkash, (6) Sunny son of Joginder, and (7) Om Parkash son of Chunni Lal, all residents of village Sithan, as additional accused.

8. In the said application, it was pleaded that in Complaint Ex. PA submitted by the complainant to the police, the names of the aforesaid persons had been specifically mentioned as accused. It was further averred that during his examination-in-chief before the trial Court, PW-1 Ajeet Singh had again specifically named the aforesaid persons and attributed their participation in the occurrence. It was further contended that there were specific allegations against the proposed accused in the complaint as well as in the deposition of PW-1 and that their names had consistently surfaced during the investigation and trial. It was, therefore, prayed that in view of the cogent evidence that had come on record, the aforesaid persons were liable to be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with the already charge-sheeted accused.

9. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the complainant/applicant as well as the learned State counsel, allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04.07.2019. While allowing the application, the learned trial Court observed that the names of the proposed accused had been specifically mentioned in Complaint Ex. PA submitted to the police and had again been specifically named by PW-1 Ajeet Singh during his examination-in-chief before the Court. The trial Court further observed that no reason had been assigned in the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for not presenting the challan against the proposed accused. It was also held that the proposed accused had been consistently named in the complaint as well as in the testimony of PW-1 and that there was sufficient evidence indicating their involvement in the occurrence. Accordingly, holding that a prima facie case for exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was made out, the learned trial Court summoned Pritam son of Partap Singh, Sonu son of Joginder, Bijender son of Mahender, Rajender son of Subhash, Sunny son of Om Parkash, Sunny son of Joginder and Om Parkash son of Chunni Lal, along with the other proposed accused, to face trial as additional accused.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is illegal, perverse and contrary to the settled principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the present petitioners were found innocent during investigation and, therefore, were not sent up for trial. The investigating agency, after considering the material collected during investigation, presented the challan only against five accused, namely, Wazir Singh, Anand, Satbir, Joginder and Deen Dayal, whereas no sufficient material was found against the present petitioners. It is further contended that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed merely on the basis of the examination-in-chief of PW-1 Ajeet Singh, who has only reiterated the allegations already levelled in Complaint Ex. PA and the earlier version furnished by him. No fresh, cogent or reliable evidence had come on record warranting invocation of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is argued that mere repetition of the allegations already contained in the complaint cannot constitute the strong and cogent evidence required for summoning a person as an additional accused.

11. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to assign any valid reason as to why the opinion of the investigating agency, which found the petitioners innocent, deserved to be discarded. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed on surmises and conjectures without recording the requisite satisfaction that the evidence on record is of such quality that, if left unrebutted, it is likely to lead to the conviction of the proposed accused.

12. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of 'Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others', 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 947 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14978, to contend that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and can be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence, over and above the material collected during investigation, comes before the Court, and not merely on a reiteration of the allegations already made before the police.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the present revision petitions and submitted that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It is contended that the petitioners, along with the other proposed accused, have been rightly summoned as additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence that surfaced during trial. It is further submitted that there was an existing dispute between the two communities regarding the land in question and, with a view to gain an upper hand, the opposite party intentionally got the earlier FIR registered before respondent No. 2 could lodge his complaint. It is argued that despite the specific allegations made against the present petitioners in the complaint and despite their names having consistently figured during the investigation, no reason whatsoever was assigned by the investigating agency in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for not presenting the challan against them.

14. Learned counsel has further argued that the statements of the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses clearly disclose the active participation of the present petitioners in the occurrence. It has been submitted that the evidence on record shows that the members of the complainant party were assaulted, dragged and subjected to violence by the accused persons, including the present petitioners. Therefore, the learned trial Court, after appreciating the material available before it, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioners as additional accused. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed.

15. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that during the course of investigation, the role of the present petitioners, namely Rajender son of Subhash, Bijender son of Mahender, Sonu son of Joginder, Sunny son of Joginder, Om Parkash son of Chunni Lal and Pritam son of Partap Singh, was thoroughly inquired into. During investigation, no independent, cogent or incriminating material could be collected to establish either their presence at the place of occurrence or their participation in the alleged incident. Upon due verification of the facts, circumstances and the evidence collected during investigation, the present petitioners were found not to be involved in the commission of the alleged offence and were, accordingly, declared innocent.

16. It  has  been  further  submitted  that,  on  completion  of investigation, separate final reports were prepared and challans were presented only against those accused against whom sufficient material had been found, namely Wazir Singh, Joginder, Anand, Deen Dayal and Satbir in the present cross-case. It is contended that, although the petitioners were not sent up for trial during investigation for want of sufficient evidence, the complainant subsequently moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence recorded during trial, which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court. The State has, therefore, reiterated the factual position emerging from the investigation and left the legality and correctness of the impugned order to the discretion of this Court.

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

18. The scope of interference in the present revision petitions is confined to examining whether the learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is well settled that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary and discretionary power, which is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where strong and cogent evidence emerges during the course of trial indicating the involvement of a person who has not been sent up for trial by the investigating agency.

19. In the present cases, a careful perusal of the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. shows that the complainant sought summoning of the present petitioners primarily on the ground that their names had already figured in Complaint Ex. PA submitted to the police and that PW-1 Ajeet Singh had reiterated those names during his examination-in-chief before the trial Court. However, significantly, neither in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. nor in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 has any specific overt act or individual role been attributed to the present petitioners. The allegations against them are omnibus in nature. The only assertion is that the petitioners, along with several other persons, were present at the spot and assaulted the complainant party. No individual injury has been attributed to any of the petitioners, nor has any specific act been assigned to them distinguishing their role from the remaining members of the alleged unlawful assembly.

20. Even in the deposition of PW-1 Ajeet Singh, after assigning specific allegations to certain charge-sheeted accused, the witness merely proceeded to name the present petitioners along with some other persons who had not been challaned by the police by stating that they also gave beatings to the complainant party. Except for naming them, no separate or distinct role has been attributed to any of the present petitioners. The deposition is, thus, substantially a reiteration of the allegations already contained in Complaint Ex. PA and does not disclose any fresh, specific or stronger evidence against the petitioners than what was already available with the investigating agency.

21. Another circumstance which assumes significance is that the present case arises out of a cross-version. The record reveals that cases were registered by both sides with regard to the same occurrence. During investigation, the police investigated both versions and, after examining the material collected during investigation, found sufficient evidence only against certain accused persons, who were accordingly charge-sheeted. The present petitioners were not sent up for trial as the investigating agency found no independent or incriminating material establishing their participation in the occurrence.

22. In this regard, the reply filed by the State assumes considerable significance. The State has categorically stated that during investigation the role of the present petitioners was thoroughly investigated and verified. It has specifically been pleaded that no independent, cogent or incriminating material could be collected to establish either their presence at the place of occurrence or their participation in the alleged incident. Upon due verification of the facts, circumstances and evidence collected during investigation, the petitioners were found not to be involved in the commission of the alleged offence and were accordingly declared innocent. The State has further stated that challan was presented only against those persons against whom sufficient incriminating material had been found during investigation.

23. Therefore, this Court finds that there existed a conscious investigative opinion, based upon the material collected during investigation, that no sufficient evidence was available against the present petitioners. Though such opinion is not binding upon the trial Court while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., nevertheless, where persons found innocent during investigation are sought to be summoned subsequently, the evidence which emerges during trial must necessarily be of a much higher quality than a mere repetition of the earlier allegations. The subsequent evidence must disclose something more than what was already before the investigating agency.

24. This Court is also unable to lose sight of the fact that the present matter pertains to a cross-case arising out of the same occurrence. In such situations, there is always a possibility of each side attempting to rope in as many persons from the opposite faction as possible. In the present case, the names of several persons were mentioned in the complaint without attribution of any distinct role, and the evidence recorded during trial also does not travel beyond such general allegations. In these circumstances, it appears that an attempt has been made to implicate additional members of the opposite side without there being any specific and cogent material regarding their individual involvement.

25. The principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are no longer res integra. In Hardeep Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and should be exercised only where the evidence appearing during trial is strong and cogent. The degree of satisfaction required for summoning an additional accused is substantially higher than that required at the stage of framing of charge. The Court must be satisfied that the evidence is such that, if it remains unrebutted, it would reasonably lead to the conviction of the proposed accused.

26. The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandar Shekhar Jaysawal@ Sonu Jaysawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another', 2026 INSC 622. In paragraph 25 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the test for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is more than the existence of a prima facie case as applicable at the stage of framing of charge, but short of recording a finding of guilt. The Court must reach a level of satisfaction that the evidence, if it remains unrebutted, is capable of leading to the conviction of the proposed accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that where such degree of satisfaction is absent, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised.

27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present cases, this Court finds that the evidence which has come on record against the present petitioners does not satisfy the aforesaid test. The names of the petitioners had already figured in the complaint submitted to the police and the witness, while stepping into the witness box, has merely repeated those allegations without attributing any distinct or specific role to any of them. No new circumstance, no independent evidence and no stronger material than what was already available during investigation has emerged during trial. The evidence, therefore, does not rise above a mere prima facie suspicion, much less reach the level of satisfaction contemplated in Hardeep Singh's case (supra) and reiterated in Chandar Shekhar Jaysawal @ Sonu Jaysawal's case (supra).

28. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court failed to apply the correct legal test while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order proceeds mainly on the basis that the names of the petitioners appeared in Complaint Ex. PA and were repeated by PW-I during his examination-in-chief. Such material, in the facts of the present case, particularly when viewed in the light of the investigation declaring the petitioners innocent and in the absence of any specific role attributed to them, cannot be said to constitute the strong and cogent evidence required for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

29. Accordingly, the present revision petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The trial Court shall, however, proceed with the trial against the remaining accused in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order, which are confined solely to the adjudication of the present revision petitions.

30. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Petitions allowed.

********