CRR/417/2026 of KAVITA @ BABITA Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 23 July 2026

CRR-417-2026 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-417-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.07.2026

Kavita @ Babita

………Petitioner

Versus State of Haryana and others

..….Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).

Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby an application under Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short `the BNSS’), filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2. In a trial of FIR No.61 dated 22.03.2024 registered under Sections 114, 307, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 506 IPC at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, the complainant had moved the aforesaid application for summoning of respondents No. 4 to 6 as additional accused, alleging therein that their names were duly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the complainant. It was further alleged that the aforesaid respondents had assaulted the complainant and her sister within an intention to kill them besides having tried to run

CRR-417-2026 (O&M) -2-

a tractor over them. It was further alleged that while appearing as PW1, the complainant had reiterated the version of the FIR and that the police had wrongly put the said respondents in column No.2 of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the names of the aforesaid respondents had specifically been mentioned in the FIR and specific roles had been attributed to them, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application under Section 358 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that even while appearing as PW1, the petitioner had reiterated the version in the FIR and had given the entire account of the incident, wherein the complainant and her sister had been assaulted by the accused, including respondents No.4 to 6, with an intention to kill them. It is argued that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.

5. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 09.07.2026, the State of Haryana was directed to file an affidavit explaining as to on what basis the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused were found to be innocent.

6. Pursuant to and in compliance with the said direction, affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Beri, District Jhajjar, filed in the Court, is taken on record.

CRR-417-2026 (O&M) -3-

7. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that on 23.03.2024, one Ramesh (brother of the complainant), had provided a pen drive to the investigating agency, containing the footage of the place of occurrence and that no evidence was found regarding the involvement of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Para No.5 and 6 of the said affidavit read as under:- “5. That in compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court, it is stated that during the course of investigation, on 23.03.2024, Ramesh brother of the complainant/petitioner Kavita provided the pen-drive containing video footage of the place of occurrence which was examined wherein it was revealed that, accused Mohit (respondent no.2) was seen while he tried to ride the said tractor upon the complainant party and co- accused Randhir (respondent no.3) was seen standing who continuously shouting something and complainant Kavita, one Krishna and one Mukesh were also seen in the footage and one boy also seen standing in the footage but he did not make any move.

6. That it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation all the material, including the video footage supplied by the complainant's brother, was duly examined by the investigating agency. However, no credible or reliable evidence surfaced establishing the involvement of Jasbir (respondent no.4), Sangeeta (respondent no.5) and Gourav (respondent no.6) in the alleged occurrence.”

8. The proposed accused were found to be innocent during investigation. The CCTV footage of the incident is said to

CRR-417-2026 (O&M) -4-

have been viewed by the Investigating Agency and the proposed accused were not found to be involved in the occurrence.

9. At this stage, apart from the statement of the complainant simply reiterating the version given in the FIR, there is no other ground to summon the proposed accused as additional accused.

10. If one considers the facts and circumstances referred to above and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

11. That being so, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 23.07.2026

JUDGE ds

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No