Court rules that re-investigation and supplementary police report cannot override a subsisting acquittal under Section 300 Cr.P.C.; summons of already acquitted accused dismissed.
In a significant judgment dated August 31, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manisha Batra, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Salwinder Singh seeking to summon accused persons who had already been acquitted in a prior trial. The petition arose from a murder case registered under FIR No.151 dated October 12, 2014, at Police Station Sarhali, Tarn Taran district, involving multiple accused charged under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 148, and 149 IPC.
The petitioner’s son had been murdered in an incident involving a large group of assailants armed with weapons. The accused, including respondents No. 2 to 4 – Stalinjit Singh, Gurdev Singh, and Gurcharan Singh – were tried and acquitted on August 4, 2018, by the trial court due to benefit of doubt. The petitioner alleged serious deficiencies in the investigation and prosecution and obtained a re-investigation order from the High Court in 2019 after raising concerns about witness intimidation and procedural lapses.
Following the re-investigation, a supplementary report was filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. which once again implicated respondents No. 2 to 4. The petitioner moved the trial court seeking their summoning for trial along with others. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application, holding that the prior acquittal in 2018 remained valid as it had not been set aside by any superior court. The court emphasized that the re-investigation and supplementary report did not disclose any new evidence or offence against the acquitted persons.
The High Court upheld this dismissal, firmly relying on the protection against double jeopardy embodied in Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that:
- A subsisting judgment of acquittal can only be set aside or challenged by appropriate appellate or revisional proceedings and cannot be indirectly nullified through a supplementary police report or re-investigation.
- The order for re-investigation did not expressly direct a retrial of the acquitted accused, and the mere inclusion of their names in a supplementary report does not provide lawful grounds for a second trial.
- The fact that the acquittal was pronounced despite a stay on pronouncement of final judgment does not render the acquittal null and void unless it is set aside by competent authority.
- The High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot override the statutory protection against double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C.
The Court also referred to recent Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark ruling in P. Manikandan v. CBI (2024), which distinguishes between retrial and re-investigation, emphasizing that ordering a fresh investigation to prosecute an acquitted person for the same offence violates constitutional protection.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the trial court rightly refused to summon the already acquitted respondents, affirming the principle that once acquitted, a person cannot be subjected to a second prosecution for the same offence unless the acquittal is set aside. The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue any available remedies against the acquittal judgment through proper appellate forums.
This ruling reinforces the finality of acquittal orders and provides clarity on the limited scope of re-investigation in criminal cases, upholding fundamental protections enshrined in the criminal justice system against the harassment of multiple trials.
Bottom Line:
Protection under Section 300 Cr.P.C. against double jeopardy bars summoning of acquitted persons for retrial based on supplementary investigation unless the earlier acquittal is set aside by a competent forum.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 300 Cr.P.C., Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., Section 319 Cr.P.C., Section 313 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Sections 302, 201, 120B, 148, 149 IPC, Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India
Salwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971100
