MANJEET SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

MANJEET SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the trial Court and High Court materially erred in refusing to exercise powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon private respondents who were specifically named in the FIR and whose complicity was supported by the injured eye-witness's examination-in-chief; Section 319 may be invoked on the basis of examination-in-chief (without waiting for cross-examination) and the court should not enter upon merits at that stage; accordingly the impugned orders were quashed and the trial court was directed to summon the private respondents to face trial for offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149 IPC, with the trial court to decide the matter on merits.

Parties
Appellant (victim): Manjeet Singh; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.; Private Respondents Sought to Be Summoned as Additional Accused: Private respondents (Sukhpal Singh; Tejpal Singh; Parab Sharan; Preet Samrat)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Directing Trial Court to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 319 Cr PC
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr PC, Summoning Additional Accused, Unlawful Assembly (section 149 Ipc), Injured Eyewitness Evidence
Criminal Procedure Evidence Section 319 Cr PC Summoning Additional Accused Unlawful Assembly (section 149 Ipc) Injured Eyewitness Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjeet Singh

Appellant (victim)

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Private respondents (Sukhpal Singh; Tejpal Singh; Parab Sharan; Preet Samrat)

Private Respondents Sought to Be Summoned as Additional Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Judgment Allowing Appeal and Directing Trial Court to Summon Additional Accused Under Section 319 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court and High Court erred in refusing to summon persons named in FIR as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC
  2. 2 At what stage and on what material the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised (examination-in-chief vs cross-examination vs investigation material)
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was entitled to enter into merits at the stage of Section 319 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial Court and High Court materially erred in refusing to exercise powers under Section 319 CrPC to summon private respondents who were specifically named in the FIR and whose complicity was supported by the injured eye-witness's examination-in-chief; Section 319 may be invoked on the basis of examination-in-chief (without waiting for cross-examination) and the court should not enter upon merits at that stage; accordingly the impugned orders were quashed and the trial court was directed to summon the private respondents to face trial for offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 & 149 IPC, with the trial court to decide the matter on merits.