Punjab & Haryana High Court: Non-Corresponding Injuries No Ground to Set Aside Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC Where FIR and Trial Testimony Show Active Participation in Assault

Case Name: Abdul Rasheed and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 28 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-54913-2023

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of corresponding injuries in the medico-legal examination does not, by itself, render summoning under Section 319 CrPC illegal where the material before the trial court, including the FIR and the complainant’s deposition, specifically attributes active participation in the occurrence to the persons sought to be summoned.

The Court observed that the petitioners had been specifically named in the FIR as participants in the occurrence and injuries had also been attributed to them. The complainant, while appearing as PW1, reiterated before the trial court that the petitioners had actively participated in the incident. In such circumstances, the Court held that non-detection of injuries corresponding exactly to those attributed to the petitioners was irrelevant for deciding whether they could be summoned as additional accused.

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the High Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised when the evidence before the Court discloses the requisite level of involvement of a person not already facing trial. The Court also noted that such power does not require the court to wait until the relevant evidence has been tested through cross-examination.

Applying that standard, the High Court found that more than a prima facie case existed against the petitioners and, therefore, no illegality was found in the trial court’s order summoning them as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Summary: The petition arose from an order dated 5 June 2023 whereby the petitioners, Abdul Rasheed and another, were summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial along with co-accused Mohd. Rashid @ Rashid. The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summoning order.

The principal argument raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the complainant’s medico-legal examination revealed only two injuries and both of those injuries were attributed to the co-accused Mohd. Rashid @ Rashid. On that basis, it was contended that there was insufficient material to summon the petitioners as additional accused.

The State of Punjab and the complainant opposed the plea. They relied upon the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the complainant’s deposition as PW1 before the trial court, contending that both pieces of material showed active participation of the petitioners and satisfied the threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC.

Upon examining the FIR and the impugned summoning order, the High Court noted that the petitioners had been specifically attributed participation in the occurrence and the complainant had also deposed during trial that they had actively participated. The Court therefore rejected the attempt to treat the absence of matching injuries in the medical record as determinative. It held that, for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 319 CrPC, the Court must assess the evidentiary material demonstrating the proposed accused’s involvement rather than confine itself solely to whether every injury alleged against that person finds exact medical corroboration.

The High Court then referred to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. It reiterated that “evidence” for the purposes of Section 319 is to be understood broadly and that the Court may act upon material emerging during inquiry or trial. It further noticed the Supreme Court’s clarification that the Court need not wait for the evidence against the proposed accused to be tested by cross-examination before exercising the power to summon.

The Court also reproduced the Supreme Court’s explanation regarding the level of satisfaction required under Section 319 CrPC. The degree of satisfaction for summoning an additional accused is higher than that required for initially summoning an accused, though the Court need not reach a conclusion that conviction is certain.

On applying those principles to the facts before it, the High Court concluded that the FIR and the complainant’s deposition together disclosed more than a prima facie case against the petitioners. The summoning order therefore did not suffer from any illegality warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.