CRR/1307/2025 of AMARDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHER on 15 July 2026

(1) SC 412. The legal position Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and e exercised sparingly and only ances of the case so warrant. It Magistrate or the Sessions Judge er person may also be guilty where strong and cogent eviden e evidence led before the court th d and not in a casual and cavali only a prima facie case is to

irst C., ing gal, set to ise at eep ent is an in t is e is of nce hat ier be KAPIL

e te e to e to c r

4. T case has to necessarily te evidence then applied is one framing of ch goes unrebutt

5. I Gujarat and Court went a “ o h t o 025 (O&M)

established from the evidence le ested on the anvil of CrossExam evidence than mere probability o o be applied is one which is exercised at the time of framing o o an extent that the evidence, i conviction. In the absence of su refrain from exercising power un Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court h be established from the evid ested on the anvil of cross-exam n mere probability of his/her co e, which is more than prima fac harge, but short of satisfaction ed, would lead to conviction...... In Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokh Others 2014 (2) RCR (Crimin step further to hold that:- “8. Section 319 of the Code confe out whether a person who ought had erroneously been omitted or the investigating agency and tha on the basis of the evidence so l ed before the court not necessar mination, it requires much strong of his complicity. The test that h more than prima facie case of charge, but short of satisfacti if goes unrebutted, would lead uch satisfaction, the court shou nder Section 319 Cr.P.C.” eld that though only a prima fac dence led before the Court, n mination, it requires much strong omplicity. The test that has to cie case as exercised at the time to an extent that the evidence, . hiria and Anothers Vs State nal) 915 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Ap fers power on the trial court to fi to have been added as an accus r has deliberately been excluded at satisfaction has to be arrived led during the trial. On the degr

rily ger has as ion to uld cie not ger be of if of pex ind sed by at ree KAPIL

o t m t

6. T to refer to th President of E there was a m Shehzada and with each oth but Babu and threatening hi associates alo Rajan son of with guns. G abusing him. other day but along with the his hand, held started thrash this, someone people of the 025 (O&M)

of satisfaction for invoking powe this Court observed that though made out is same as that when taken and process issued, the de 319 of the Code is much higher.” To appreciate the legality of imp he version in the FIR. Complai East Mohan Nagar Park Society. meeting of the locality. At the t d Parminder Singh Chauhan son her for forming new members. H d Ravikant instigated Parmind im. Then, he called his son Gur ong with weapons to the park. A Parminder Singh along with 5- Gurpreet Singh @ Raj immedi He tried to pacify him and told t Parminder Singh Chauhan and eir accomplices forcibly stopped d pistol on his face which hit le ing him, inflicted wounds and a e took gold chain which he was locality gathering, they ran from er under Section 319 of the Cod the test of prima facie case bei n the cognizance of the offence egree of satisfaction under Secti ” pugned order, it would be releva inant alleged therein that he w On 28.05.2020 at about 6:30 PM time of meeting, residents name n of Hardip Singh started argui He tried to make them understa der Chauhan who, in anger start rpreet Singh @ Rajan to call mo After some time, Gurpreet Singh 6 unknown persons came in a c iately raised a lalkara and start that the meeting be kept for som d his son Gurpreet Singh @ Raj d him. Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan ft side of his nose. Other perso also threatened to kill him. Duri s wearing in his neck. On seei m the spot with their weapons.

de, ing is ion ant was M, ely ing and ted ore @ car ted me jan hit ons ing ing KAPIL

7. T Section 319 C adduced befo sheet or the c police during there is credib found worth petitioner/com (supra), his s r P t @ a “ B c c s c w S 025 (O&M)

There can be no denying that th Cr.P.C. to add additional accus ore it and is not to rely upon the case diary. Even those persons investigation can be summone ble evidence showing their invo y of acceptance. To deter mplainant is satisfies the test la tatement needs to be referred. H “On 28.05.2020 at abou residents of locality in the pa Parminder Singh Chauhan entere to make them understand and on @ Babbu and Ravikant, Parw aggressive and started sbusing “Pardhangi ki hundi Ae”. On th Babbu, Ravikant accused Parwin called his son Gurpreet Singh companions saying that they wi some time, Gurpreet Singh @ companions came to the spot weapons. When they reached, t Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant he Court can invoke powers und sed only on the basis of eviden e material available on the char s, who have been dropped by t ed as additional accused, provid olvement in the offence, which rmine whether evidence of t aid down in Hardeep Singh ca He stated that: ut 6:30 PM he called meeting ark, during which Shehzada a ed into verbal altercation. He tri n the instigation of Innderjit Sin rwinder Singh Chauhan becam g him and threatened him sayi he instigation of Inderjit Singh nder Singh Chauhan telephonica @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith h ill finish him and kill him. Af Rajan @ Billa alongwith his 5 t on his car, armed with dead they started abusing him. Inder also instigated to kill him. He

der nce rge the ded h is the ase of and ried ngh me ing h @ ally his fter 5-6 dly rjit hit KAPIL

h o S S f t

8. T be exercised o to turn agains another perso in view the e report to the sparingly only persons who h

9. C trial and all r considered vi take cognizan

10. A the FIR, the o who became e @ Rajan over Interjit Singh 025 (O&M)

him on his nose with butt of hi other accused also caused injuri Singh @ Babu, Ravikant, Gurpr Singh snatched his gold neck ch from leaving the spot and when p they fled ………” The power conferred on the Cou only to achieve the ends of justic st any person whenever it come on also with the offence. A judic evidence of the witness examin police. The power under Sec y for compelling reasons, which have been found innocent by the Considering first version of the relevant facts and circumstance ew that it is not a case in which nce against respondents No.2 and Although the names of responde only role attributed to them is tha enraged and while threatening h r the phone along with his assoc h @ Babu and Ravikant instig his pistol leading to bleeding. A ries to him. Then accused Inder reet Singh @ Billa and Parwind hain, whereafter all restrained h people of society started gatherin urt under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is ce and the Court cannot be sway es across evidence connecting th cial exercise is called for, keepi ned, in the back drop of the fi tion 319 Cr.P.C. should be us h justify taking cognizance again e police. complainant, his evidence in t es of the case, the Court is of t h the Court could be compelled d 3. ents No.2 and 3 do find mention at they instigated Parwinder Sing him, called his son Gurpreet Sin ciates in the park. In what mann gated the complainant has not be

All erjit der him ing, to yed hat ing irst sed nst the the to in gh, ngh ner, een KAPIL

elaborated an @ Babbu and the complain version that I Singh @ Raja hit him on th report. Furth with Gurpree from his neck before the Co learned Addit said that more and 3 by invo

11. T illegality resu jurisdiction by

12. T

15.07.2026 Kapil

025 (O&M)

ywhere. What were the precise d Ravi Kant have also not been sp ant in the Court is much impr nderjit Singh @ Babbu and R an and other accused to kill, upo he nose with butt of pistol is c her, the version that Inderjit Sin et Singh @ Rajan and Parwinde k is also improved. The embel ourt regarding respondents No.2 tional Sessions Judge. From th e than a prima facie case is made oking powers under Section 319 C There is no apparent defect in the ulting in miscarriage of justice, y this Court. The revision petition is hereby di (S

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable words used by said Inderjit Sin pelled out. The statement made roved over his first version. T Ravikant also instigated Gurpre on which Gurpreet Singh @ Raj conspicuously missing in the fi gh @ Babbu and Ravikant alo er Singh, snatched his gold cha llished version of the complaina 2 and 3 was rightly discarded he material on record, it cannot e out to summon respondents No Cr.P.C. e impugned order nor any manife warranting exercise of revision ismissed.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No

ngh by The eet jan irst ong ain ant by be o.2 fest nal L) KAPIL