Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uday Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 September, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2014
Uday Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present revision petition has been filed to challenge impugned order dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning Rambir and Sunil i.e respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accused to face trial along with other accused, who are facing trial in case FIR No.343 dated 07.11.2011 registered under Sections 323, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations in the FIR and statement of the complainant, specific roles have been attributed to the persons sought to be summoned but still they were found innocent during investigation and were kept in column No.2 of the challan.
In the statement of PW-3, it has been mentioned that the persons sought to be summoned were also involved in the commission of GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.19 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M) 2 offence, however, the application has been dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that the Summoning Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-3 in true perspective while declining the prayer of the prosecution to summon the additional accused. Learned counsel further submits that the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused had equally participated in the commission of offence and are equally liable along with other accused. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient material is there on record regarding the involvement of said accused and for summoning them to face trial along with other accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases Y. Saraba Reddy vs Puthur Rami Reddy and another 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 1014, Ram Pal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, Harbhajan Singh and another vs State of Punjab and another 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 916, State of Haryana vs Suresh @ Pappu 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 559 as well as judgments of this Court in cases Mann Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 289, Santosh Kaur vs State of Punjab and others 2012(2) RCR (Crl.) 613 and Paramvir @ Happy vs State of Haryana 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 408, in support of his contentions.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.
Admittedly, FIR No.343 dated 07.11.2011 under Sections 323, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal was registered against accused including two persons, namely, Rambir and Sunil. As per FIR, said two GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.19 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M) 3 persons caught hold of brother of the complainant. However, during investigation, both persons were found innocent and were not found to be involved in the commission of offence. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C after recording the statement of Uday Singh-PW3. Said witness was also cross examined. In the application moved by the prosecution, it was mentioned that the persons sought to be summoned also participated in the occurrence and their names were mentioned in the FIR. While dismissing the application of the prosecution, a detailed finding has been recorded on the basis of statement of PW-3. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that nothing new has come on the file regarding role attributed to the persons sought to be summoned and merely by relying upon the statements of witnesses, the order of summoning cannot be passed.
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C is reproduced as under :-
"319. 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 -GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.19 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M) 4
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witness 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."
From the perusal of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the basic requirement for invoking said section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that the person sought to be summoned is also involved in the commission of offence, for which, that person could be tried together with the accused persons, who are facing trial. However, during investigation, both persons were found innocent and were not found to be involved in the commission of offence. Even on perusal of statement of PW-3, it appears that there is no fresh evidence or material available on record to show that these persons were also involved or participated in the commission of offence. Undoubtedly, as per provisions of said Section and various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as of this Court, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is an extra-ordinary power and it is to be used very sparingly only when compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the persons sought to be summoned. It is also settled in various judgments that the discretion, which is to be exercised by the Court, is not to be exercised in routine unless the compelling reasons are there. Additional accused cannot be summoned when some doubt is there but he is to be summoned after taking into consideration the reasonable material evidence already collected or which comes after recording of the statement of the complainant or other witnesses and it is also to be seen by the Summoning Court that there might be reasonable prospect of conviction of the person to be summoned.
GURPREET KAUR2014.09.19 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh Crl. Rev. No.2560 of 2014 (O&M) 5
Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab and others 2014(1) RCR (Crl.) 623 held that for summoning a person for trial, it is to be seen that such person can be tried along with other accused who are facing trial.
In view of the facts and also the settled proposition of law, there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 10.09.2014 JUDGE gurpreet GURPREET KAUR 2014.09.19 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh