Rajesh vs State of Haryana - Case Analysis

Last Updated on May 19, 2025
Download As PDF
IMPORTANT LINKS
Landmark Judgements
Advocates Act
Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Civil Procedure Code
Company Law
Constitutional Law
Dk Basu vs State of West Bengal Golaknath vs State of Punjab Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Selvi vs State of Karnataka Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan State of Up vs Raj Narain Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh Dc Wadhwa vs State of Bihar Mc Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Kedarnath vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Up State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati Kasturi Lal vs State of Up Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan Mr Balaji vs State of Mysore Ram Jawaya vs State of Punjab Bhikaji vs State of Mp Lata Singh vs State of Up Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay Anil Rai vs State of Bihar Khatri vs State of Bihar R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa State of Karnataka vs Umadevi Rajbala vs State of Haryana Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka Jagmohan vs State of Up Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi Shamsher vs State of Punjab Tma Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab Automobile Transport vs State of Rajasthan State Trading Corporation of India vs Commercial Tax officer Dhulabhai vs State of Mp Joseph vs State of Kerala State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kathi Raning Rawat vs State of Saurashtra Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh Ep Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu State of West Bengal vs Union of India Pa Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra Ratilal vs State of Bombay Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali Pucl vs State of Maharashtra Lk Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan Nalsa vs Union of India Joseph Shine vs Union of India Shayara Bano vs Union of India Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Sr Bommai vs Union of India Lily Thomas vs Union of India​ Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration​ M Nagaraj vs Union of India​ Kaushal Kishore vs State of Up Zee Telefilms vs Union of India Bcci vs Cricket Association of Bihar Shakti Vahini vs Union of India​ Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India​ T Devadasan vs Union of India Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Chintaman Rao vs State of Mp Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India Som Prakash vs Union of India Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh Balram Singh vs Union of India Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra Anjum Kadari vs Union of India Omkar vs The Union of India V Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India Sita Soren vs Union of India Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu Jaya Thakur vs Union of India Ameena Begum vs The State Of Telangana Cbi vs Rr Kishore Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi Keshavan Madhava Menon vs State Of Bombay Kishore Samrite vs State Of Up Md Rahim Ali Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam Mineral Area Development Authority vs Steel Authority Of India
Contempt of Courts Act
Contract Law
Copyright Act
Criminal Procedure Code
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Ak Gopalan vs State of Madras Sakiri Vasu vs State of Up State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab Joginder Kumar vs State of Up Lalita vs State of Up Kashmira Singh vs State of Punjab Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam Rajesh vs State of Haryana Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat Dharampal vs State of Haryana Dudhnath Pandey vs State of Up State of Karnataka vs Yarappa Reddy Rekha Murarka vs State of West Bengal Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar​ Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab Ar Antulay vs Rs Nayak Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim Saleem Bhai vs State of Maharashtra​ State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi Gurcharan Singh vs State Delhi Admn​ Central Bureau of Investigation vs Vikas Mishra Satender Kumar Antil vs Cbi Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh vs State of Gujarat​ Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation Devu G Nair vs The State of Kerala Sharif Ahmad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Environmental Law
Forest Conservation Act
Hindu Law
Partnership Act
Indian Evidence Act
Indian Penal Code
Km Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mh George Amrit Singh vs State of Punjab Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Singh vs State of Punjab Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mohd Yakub S Varadarajan vs State of Madras Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab State of Tamil Nadu vs Suhas Katti Suresh vs State of Up Rupali Devi vs State of Up Alamgir vs State of Bihar Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand Major Singh vs State of Punjab Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab Mukesh vs State of Nct Delhi Anurag Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra Pramod Suryabhan vs State of Maharashtra Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab Mh Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra Basdev vs State of Pepsu Uday vs State of Karnataka Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab Rampal Singh vs State of Up Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh Sawal Das vs State of Bihar Nalini vs State of Tamil Nadu Badri Rai vs State of Bihar Ratanlal vs State of Punjab Kamesh Panjiyar vs State of Bihar Govindachamy vs State of Kerala Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of Up Dalip Singh vs State of Up Mohd Ibrahim vs State of Bihar Kameshwar vs State of Bihar Prabhakar Tiwari vs State of Up Deepchand vs State of Up Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab Varkey Joseph vs State of Kerala Sher Singh vs State of Punjab Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar​ Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam Kapur Singh vs State of Pepsu​ Naeem Khan Guddu vs State Topan Das vs State of Bombay Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra Omprakash Sahni vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra​ Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India Rajender Singh vs Santa Singh Cherubin Gregory vs State of Bihar Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy Navas vs State Of Kerala Reg vs Govinda
Industrial Dispute Act
Intellectual Property Rights
International Law
Labour Law
Law of Torts
Muslim Law
NDPS Act
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Prevention of Corruption Act
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
SC/ST Act
Specific Relief Act
Taxation Law
Transfer of Property Act
Travancore Christian Succession Act

Case Overview

Case Title

Rajesh vs State of Haryana

Case No.

Criminal Appeal no. 813 of 2019

Jurisdiction

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Date of the Judgment

1st May 2019

Bench

Justice M.R. Shah and Justice L. Nageswara Rao

Petitioner

Rajesh

Respondent

State of Haryana

Provisions Involved

Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Introduction of Rajesh vs State of Haryana

In Rajesh vs State of Haryana, an FIR was lodged against several individuals for offences under the Indian Penal Code. Despite being named in the FIR, the appellants were not initially charge-sheeted. However, based on witness testimonies, the court later summoned them to face trial under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Crack Judicial Services Exam with India's Super Teachers

Get 18+ 12 Months SuperCoaching @ just

₹149999 ₹55999

Your Total Savings ₹94000
Explore SuperCoaching

Historical Context and Facts of Rajesh vs State of Haryana

In the present case, an FIR was lodged by Hukum Singh at Police Station Sadar, Panipat against ten accused including the appellants under various sections including Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Incident

It was alleged that on the same day Hukum Singh, his son Bhajji and Hari were travelling on a tractor from Panipat to their village Chhajpur Khurd. While picking up a motorcycle parked near a shop, several individuals armed with various weapons including swords, pistols, hockey sticks, iron bars attacked Bhajji and Hari. These individuals were riding motorcycles and attacked both men in response to an alleged exhortation by Rajesh who suggested killing them over a land dispute. The attackers fled the scene after threatening to kill anyone who took action against them.

Injuries and Death

Both Bhajji and Hari sustained injuries and Hari later succumbed to his injuries while receiving treatment at Prem Hospital.

Investigation and Arrest

All accused named in the FIR were arrested. Initially, the Investigating Officer found ten people involved in the incident but did not find evidence against the appellants. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC against four accused only. The appellants were found to be in different locations at the time of the incident.

Further Investigation

Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reaffirmed that the appellants were not at the crime scene. Consequently, applications were filed before the Judicial Magistrate for the release of the appellants and they were discharged.

Examination of Witnesses

During the trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses: Hukum Singh, the original informant) and Bhajji. Both corroborated the prosecution's case and identified the appellants as present at the time of the incident.

Application under Section 319 CrPC

Based on the testimonies of the two witnesses the original informant filed an application under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon the appellants to face trial. The Magistrate, using the powers under Section 319, summoned the appellants to face trial for the offences listed in the FIR.

Revisions and Appeals

The appellants challenged the order of the Magistrate but the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed their revision petition affirming the summoning order. Hence, the appellants filed the present appeal before a higher court.

Issue addressed in Rajesh vs State of Haryana

The main question which was addressed in this case-

  • What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign an accused? 
  • Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?

Legal Provisions involved in Rajesh vs State of Haryana

Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 319 of the Code deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. It states that-

  1. Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
  2. Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
  3. Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
  4. Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then -
  1. the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard
  2. subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Judgment and Impact of Rajesh vs State of Haryana

The Supreme Court in this case substantiated the wide scope of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court clarified that this power can be exercised based on witness statements made in examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination.

The Court noted that the orders passed by the Magistrate were not actual orders of discharge from the case but merely orders discharging the appellants from custody. Therefore, the submission by the appellants that they were fully discharged and could not be summoned again was based on a misconception.

The Supreme Court in this case cited the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, 2014. The Court noted that Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be invoked if there is sufficient evidence presented during the trial, even if no charge-sheet was filed initially.

The Supreme Court found no error in the actions of the Trial Court or the High Court in summoning the Appellants under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Supreme Court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to interfere with the decision of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. The court upheld the summoning of the appellants to face trial under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Rajesh vs State of Haryana validated the summoning of the appellants under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court also clarified that the power under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked based on witness statements made during trial, even if no charge-sheet was filed initially. The Court in this case also observed no error in the actions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal and highlighted the scope of Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

More Articles for Landmark Judgements

FAQs about Rajesh vs State of Haryana

The main question which was addressed in this case was the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign an accused and whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted.

The key legal provisions involved in this case was Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Supreme Court upheld the summoning of the appellants under Section 319 of the Code and dismissed the appeal.

Report An Error