Punjab-Haryana High Court
Attar Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.07.2013.
Attar Singh and another ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
Briefly, the facts of the case, are that FIR No.297 dated 30.08.2010 under aforesaid sections was registered on the basis of complaint made by one Jaiveer. After investigation, two accused, namely, Sunil Kumar and Narender were charge sheeted and petitioners were found to be innocent and they were kept in Column Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M) 2 No.2 of the challan. During pendency of the trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by one of the accused, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2012. Against order dated 04.04.2012, Criminal Revision No.1541 of 2012 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2012. Thereafter, in another application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused vide order dated 11.02.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned summoning order on the ground that earlier application moved by one of the accused was dismissed and even revision petition was also dismissed by this Court. There was no fresh evidence or statement before the summoning Court and the impugned order amounts to review of earlier order passed on 04.04.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners were found innocent in the investigation as no material/evidence was found against them. No evidence is there to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned Summoning Court has not taken into consideration the earlier order passed in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as order passed by this Court in revision petition.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M) 3 passing of order in the earlier application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as order passed in the revision petition.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the impugned order.
Undisputedly, the petitioners were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in Column No.2 and the application was moved by one of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and thereafter, revision petition was also dismissed by this Court. Again an application has been moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of petitioners as additional accused, which has been allowed. Learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the order passed on 04.04.2012 as well as order dated 22.05.2012 passed by this Court in revision petition. In the impugned order, nothing has been mentioned about earlier order passed in the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Actually the impugned order amounts to review of earlier order dated 04.04.2012 which is not permissible under law.
As per provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the powers are there with the trial court, in case it comes to the conclusion that some other persons are there, who are also involved in the commission of crime but the powers are to be exercised with care and caution as has been held in various judgments. This power is to be exercised only when the Court finds that some evidence is there on the record, Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M) 4 which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. The trial court cannot summon a person only on the basis of some suspicion but it should be evident and reflected from the evidence already collected that there are some compelling reasons for summoning a person to face trial. It has also been held in various judgments that summoning order cannot be passed merely on the statement of witnesses unless some compelling reasons are there which leads to conviction. The satisfaction of the trial Court along with reasoning is to be recorded while passing summoning order. This view has been held in various judgments by this court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Some of the judgments are Sarabjit Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 388, Michael Machado & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 504, Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 200, Kishori vs. State, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 555, Dayanand Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 105, Hukam Chand and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141, Smt. Rani vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 985 and Angrej Singh vs. State of Punjab, (CRR No.3112 of 2011) decided on 26.04.2012.
In the present case, summoning order has been passed Rani Neetu 2013.08.06 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.727 of 2013 (O&M) 5 without any application of judicial mind and without considering the order already passed in earlier application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as order of this court in revision petition.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and impugned order dated 04.04.2012 is set aside.
No order as to costs.
30.07.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.08.06 09:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh