HC flags 'demonstrable tendency' to over-implicate relatives of accused in criminal cases

Sounding a note of caution against the misuse of criminal law to drag additional names into the case beyond the main offenders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the judicial system must remain vigilant against the “over-implication of peripheral individuals” such as relatives or associates of the main accused.

The assertion came as Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a petition seeking summoning of additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Bench observed that courts must not allow the criminal process to become “an instrument of coercion or harassment against tangentially connected parties.”

“Pertinently, this Court is very well cognisant of the sociological reality that frequently attends the initiation of criminal proceedings, manifesting as a demonstrable tendency on the part of the informant/complainant to amplify the array of accused beyond the principal perpetrators,” Justice Goel asserted.

The Bench added the pattern often resulted in the over-implication of peripheral individuals—particularly the relatives, family, or close associates of the main accused—risking the conversion of the criminal process into an “instrument of coercion or harassment against tangentially connected parties.”

Delineating the limited and exceptional scope of the court’s power under Section 319, Justice Goel asserted: “Indubitably, Section 319 of the CrPC empowers a Court to arraign any person, as an additional accused in an ongoing trial, who is not already an accused before it, if the evidence suggests that such person has committed the offence, which is the subject matter of that trial, and should be tried with accused persons already facing trial.”

Justice Goel added that the “jurisprudential bedrock” of Section 319 found its resonance in the immutable legal maxim Judex Damnatur Cum Nocens Absolvitor — the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted. Yet the immense discretionary authority was required to be “scrupulously judicious and sparing” in its invocation.

“It is not to be exercised casually or cavalierly, nor merely on the subjective opinion of the trial court judge that another individual may also be complicit in the offence. Rather, this exceptional authority must only be utilised where compelling circumstances necessitate such action and where evidence before the court is sufficiently strong and cogent,” Justice Goel asserted.

Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench observed that the petitioner had challenged the Sirsa Sessions Judge’s 2021 decision declining to summon three individuals named in the FIR but found innocent by the investigating agency. Justice Goel noted that the petitioner’s testimony during trial was “largely a repetition of the version contained in the FIR” and brought forth “no new or independent material” to justify summoning the respondents.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, no new or independent material has been brought on record which could justify the exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC,” Justice Goel asserted, adding that the trial court had “appropriately dealt with the application.”

Holding that the trial court’s refusal to summon additional accused was justified, Justice Goel concluded: “In view of these accentuating facts, exaggeration of involvement of number of accused persons cannot altogether be ruled out.”