Court reaffirms that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before conclusion of trial (i.e., before pronouncement of judgment), following the Constitution Bench decision in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289. This order binds all subordinate criminal courts in the State of Punjab & Haryana regarding the time window to exercise Section 319 CrPC powers in criminal trials for offences including those under IPC Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/236/2019 of KULDEEP Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC010114332019 |
| Date of Registration | 28-01-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Interpretation and temporal scope of Section 319 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether the power under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused can be exercised after conclusion of trial (i.e., after judgment has been pronounced)? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira, powers under Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused must be exercised before the conclusion of trial, which is understood as the stage before pronouncement of judgment. Since the trial in the present case was already concluded and judgment pronounced, the petition to summon additional accused does not survive and must be dismissed. The Court further noted that the trial court had already considered the facts (including the ration card issue) when passing its order. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The settled law as enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding the temporal limit to exercise powers under Section 319 CrPC—must be exercised before trial is concluded (before pronouncement of judgment). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner filed a Section 319 CrPC application in FIR No. 0289 dated 30.05.2017 (Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 IPC, P.S. Mahendergarh) seeking to summon additional accused, but the application was dismissed by the trial court and the main accused (husband of the deceased) had already been convicted and sentenced. The petition reiterated arguments based on living arrangements documented via ration card evidence, which were already considered by the trial court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirmed that Section 319 CrPC powers to summon additional accused must be exercised before conclusion of trial, which means prior to pronunciation of judgment.
- Reiterates that even the presence of credible new evidence cannot revive the court’s power under Section 319 CrPC once judgment is pronounced.
- Restates the binding authority of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira on this issue.
- Lawyers should be vigilant about seeking Section 319 CrPC relief strictly within the trial window to avoid procedural bar.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira (2023) 1 SCC 289 has definitively settled the law that the power under Section 319 CrPC for summoning additional accused can only be exercised up to the stage of pronouncement of judgment.
- The learned counsel for respondents pointed out that, in this case, the trial had already concluded and judgment delivered, hence Section 319 CrPC power was no longer available.
- The petitioner did not contest the legal proposition but argued on the merits (i.e., sufficiency of evidence to summon additional accused) and sought more time to produce further documents regarding the living arrangements, already addressed by the trial court.
- The High Court held that, in light of the settled law by the Supreme Court and the admitted conclusion of trial, the petition could not be entertained and was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that there was cogent evidence available on file justifying summoning of additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
- Contended that the application was wrongly dismissed by the trial court.
- Sought to rely on additional evidence (such as ration card and food supplies report) to show the proposed accused lived with the deceased and her husband.
Respondents
- Submitted that the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab makes it clear that Section 319 CrPC powers are only available before the judgment is pronounced.
- Pointed out that in the present case, the judgment has already been passed and the trial is therefore concluded.
Factual Background
The case arose from FIR No. 0289 dated 30.05.2017, registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 IPC at Police Station Mahendergarh. The petitioner moved an application under Section 319 CrPC seeking summoning of additional accused, alleging sufficient evidence to support their involvement. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that proposed accused were living separately—a finding the petitioner disputed using documents such as ration card and food supplies reports. However, the main accused (deceased’s husband) was convicted, and the trial was concluded prior to the current proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed the application of Section 319 CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code), which empowers courts to proceed against persons appearing to be guilty of offence but not originally accused, provided this is done before conclusion of trial.
- The interpretation of “conclusion of trial” was guided by the Supreme Court’s definition in Sukhpal Singh Khaira—as the stage before pronouncement of the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and applies the Constitution Bench precedent from the Supreme Court regarding the temporal scope of Section 319 CrPC.
Citations
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289