Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chander vs Ram Chand & Ors on 8 August, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM-M-26062-2013 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
232 CRM-M-26062-2013
Date of decision: 8.8.2014
RAMESH CHANDER
......Petitioner
Versus
RAM CHAND & ORS
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Arun Gosain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.J.R.Syal, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of order dated 13.3.2010 (Annexure P-2), whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and order dated 16.4.2013 (Annexure P-3), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as the same were based on incorrect facts.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
ANITA DEVI 2014.08.11 16:15 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26062-2013 2 Section 319 Cr.P.C.reads as under:-
"Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 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
a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard.
b) 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."
ANITA DEVI Thus, as per the above provision, Court has ample power 2014.08.11 16:15 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26062-2013 3 to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears during trial that such person appears to have committed the offence.
In the present case, initially FIR No.66 dated 18.1.1999 under Sections 452, 427, 325, 380, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station, City Gurdaspur. After investigation of the case, cancellation report was submitted by the investigating agency. Complainant-petitioner, however, filed a protest petition. It has been noticed by the trial Court that in the said petition, none of the persons, now sought to be summoned as additional accused, were named as accused. The trial Court has further noticed that in the pre charge evidence, petitioner initially stated that accused along with 15/16 un-identified persons had criminally trespassed in his house and had committed the alleged offence. Examination-in-chief of the petitioner was deferred and on the adjourned date, petitioner named Sukhraj Singh, Anish Gopinathan, Arminder Singh, Harpal Singh and Manpreet Singh as the persons, who were also involved in the occurrence. Thereafter, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning Sukhraj Singh, Anish Gopinathan, Arminder Singh, Harpal Singh and Manpreet Singh as additional accused.
Learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as initially the persons, now sought to be summoned as additional accused, were not named in the protest petition filed by the petitioner. A perusal of impugned order dated 13.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) reveals that the five ANITA DEVI accused were facing the trial, out of whom accused Ram Chand has 2014.08.11 16:15 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRM-M-26062-2013 4 since died. Since the persons, now sought to be summoned as additional accused, were not arrayed as accused by the complainant in the complaint, application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
Aggrieved against the order dated 13.3.2010, petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was dismissed by the court of revision vide order dated 16.4.2013 (Annexure P-3).
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
SABINA) JUDGE August 08, 2014 anita ANITA DEVI 2014.08.11 16:15 I am approving this document Chandigarh