“Criminal Process Becomes Tool Of Harassment If Accused's Relatives Are Over-Implicated": P&H High Court Rejects Plea U/S 319 CrPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned against the tendency of complainants to over-implicate friends and relatives of the main accused in criminal cases, observing that such practices risk converting the criminal process into a tool of harassment rather than justice.While dismissing a revision plea against rejecting the prosecution's application under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon three persons as an additional accused, Justice Sumeet Goel said, "this Court is very well cognizant of the sociological reality that frequently attends the initiation of criminal proceedings, manifesting as a demonstrable tendency on part of the informant/complainant to amplify the array of accused beyond the principal perpetrators."This pattern often results in the over-implication of peripheral individuals—particularly the relatives, family members, or close associates of the main accused—risking the conversion of the criminal process into an instrument of coercion or harassment against tangentially connected parties, the Court added.The revision petition was filed by the complainant– Vijay Singh in a case under Sections 323, 325, 326, 341, 367, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, challenging the Sessions Court's refusal to summon the private respondents as additional accused.During trial, the complainant testified the allegations against the respondents, prompting the prosecution to move an application under Section 319 CrPC for their summoning. The Sessions Court, however, dismissed the plea, holding that no new or independent material had emerged warranting the exercise of such extraordinary powers.The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the injured eye-witness, who had assigned distinct roles and specific injuries to each of the proposed accused. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 92], counsel contended that the degree of satisfaction under Section 319 CrPC was equivalent to that required at the stage of framing charges, and that the testimony of an injured witness merited substantial evidentiary weight.After analysing the scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC, reiterated that the provision vests an extraordinary discretionary power in the trial court, to be exercised sparingly and judiciously. The evidentiary threshold, the Court noted, must be higher than that required for framing of charges—there must exist strong and cogent evidence indicating the person's complicity.Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) AIR SC 2792], the Bench emphasised that mere repetition of earlier allegations or the ipse dixit of a witness is insufficient for summoning an additional accused.The Court observed, “In the present case, no new or independent material has been brought on record which could justify the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's deposition is largely a repetition of the FIR version.”In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.Title: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 415Click here to read order

“Criminal Process Becomes Tool Of Harassment If Accused's Relatives Are Over-Implicated": P&H High Court Rejects Plea U/S 319 CrPC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags