Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses plea against summoning under Section 319 CrPC in abetment to suicide case

Case Name: Aman v. State of Haryana & Another
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: CRR-1892-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Aman challenging his summoning as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. The Court held that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion under Section 319 after considering the deposition of the complainant (PW-1) and the suicide note, which disclosed sufficient material showing the petitioner’s active involvement in the harassment that led to the deceased’s suicide. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, but in the present case, the evidence met the threshold of satisfaction required for summoning.

Summary: The case originated from FIR No. 641 dated December 5, 2019, registered at Police Station Meham, Rohtak, for offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. The FIR alleged that Sandeep, the complainant’s brother, committed suicide after being continuously harassed by his wife Ritu, her relatives, and Aman (the petitioner), who was allegedly in an illicit relationship with Ritu. The complainant deposed that a SIM card in Aman’s name was found in Ritu’s almirah, revealing their relationship, which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Based on this evidence, the trial court allowed the complainant’s application under Section 319 CrPC and summoned Aman as an additional accused.

The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that his summoning was based on conjecture and that mere allegations of extramarital relations could not amount to abetment under Section 306 IPC. The State opposed, pointing to the suicide note mentioning Aman’s role and corroborating witness testimony.

Justice Subhas Mehla reviewed the scope of Section 319 CrPC, citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022), which lay down that summoning under Section 319 requires strong, reliable evidence that, if unrebutted, could lead to conviction. The Court also relied on Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), emphasizing that the evidence must be more than mere probability of complicity.

Decision: The High Court found that the suicide note and PW-1’s testimony established a clear prima facie link between the petitioner’s conduct and the deceased’s suicide. It held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and committed no illegality in summoning the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court’s order met the legal standards for invoking Section 319 CrPC.