Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashu Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 October, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRR No. 2977 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR No. 2977 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 18, 2012
Ashu Sharma
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Heard.
This is a revision petition against the order dated August 24, 2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing an application for summoning additional accused under Sections 319 Cr.P.C. in a cross-version recorded in FIR No. 129 of 2009 under Sections 307,427, 148, 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar.
CRR No. 2977 of 2012 [2]
Brief facts relevant for decision of the present petition are that the FIR No.129 of 2009 was registered at the instance of Anil Dhal alleging that the complainant alongwith his brother Amit Dhall and friend Manpreet @ Sonu had gone in their Endeavour Car for inauguration of shop of their friend Ashok Kumar at Gopal Nagar at 2.45 p.m. They were attacked by Manoj Kumar Nanna, Chhota Kala, Davinder Bains, Bitti etc. armed with fire arms like 12 bore rifle, pistols and double barrel 12 bore gun. In the same case, a cross-version was recorded at the instance of Ashu to the effect that on September 26, 2009 Ajay Yadav and few others were present when 10/12 other boys came in Bolero and Swift cars including Pankaj Dhall, Bobby Dhall, Rinku Dhall etc. When Manoj Kumar @ Nanna came after parking his car, Ajay Yadav had drawn the attention of his accomplices to attack Nanna then Pankaj Dhal took out 12 bore gun from his vehicle whereas other boys took out datar and gandasi from the vehicles and started firing at Nanna on which Nanna and Davinder Bains ran towards the mohalla from crossing. There was a cross-fire as a result of which ASI Avtar Singh and others were injured. Another FIR No.130 pertaining to the same incident was recorded at the instance of Avtar Singh alleging that in cross-fire between the two groups, he received pallet injury.
During the course of trial of FIR No.129 in cross-version recorded in the said case, Ashu Sharma has appeared as PW1 and reiterated his cross-version stating that when Manoj Kumar @ Nanna had come near his shop, Amit Dhall, Bobby Dhall, Sukh, Montu Gill, Soni Kanpuria, and CRR No. 2977 of 2012 [3] Sonu took out their revolvers and Pankaj Dhall took out 12 bore revolver from his vehicle and they started firing at Manoj Kumar @ Nanna from their respective weapons alongwith Davinder Bains. On the basis of said statement, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to summon Pankaj Dhall and others as additional accused in the cross-version claiming that they have been named by PW1 Ashu Sharma in cross-version in FIR No.129. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the allegations against the persons sought to be added as additional accused are vague. The said order dated August 24, 2012 has been impugned in the present petition. This petition has been filed by Ashu Sharma, complainant in cross-version.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not want to press his claim under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused qua all the accused but insists that application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be allowed only at least qua Pankaj Dhall who has been specifically named to have taken out his 12 bore gun and fired. It has been submitted that his presence is admitted on the spot and that there is sufficient material against him to be tried and convicted for the version put- forth by Ashu Sharma in the cross-version in FIR No. 129 which was originally registered at the instance of Atul Dhall, the real brother of Pankaj Dhall.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as CRR No. 2977 of 2012 [4] order dated August 24, 2012 dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., passed on the basis of the evidence existing at the time of adjudication of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned, there does not appear to be any illegality in the same. There does not appear to be any corroborative evidence to the statement of Ashu Sharma by the time the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been decided but it has been brought to the notice of the Court that it is not only the statement of Ashu existing on the record but during the pendency of this revision petition, the statement of other witness in cross-version i.e. Manoj Kumar @ Nanna has also been recorded who was fired at by Pankaj Dhall and his other accomplices.
It has been submitted by Mr. Navkiran Singh that if the statement of Ashu Sharma PW1 is considered alongwith corroborative statement of Manoj Kumar @ Nanna PW4 and the other material including the admitted facts then it makes out a case warranting allowing of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
I have considered the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that it will not be appropriate to consider the claim of the petitioner to array additional accused in the cross-version on the basis of the material which is not part of the present revision petition or which was not before the Additional Sessions Judge who decided the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of the above circumstances, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition CRR No. 2977 of 2012 [5] with an observation that it will be open to the petitioner or the prosecution to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the statement of PW4 and other material produced subsequently to summon Pankaj Dhall or any other accused. In case any such application is filed, it will be decided without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner irrespective of order dated August 24, 2012. In case the prosecution agency or the complainant in the cross-version is able to satisfy the Court that there is sufficient material if seen in context to the parameters laid down in Micheal Machado Vs. C.B.I. and anther, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 or any other case applicable to the facts of the case, it will be open to the trial Court to take into consideration the total material available for the purpose of deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
With the above liberty, I do not find any ground at this stage to interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
October 18, 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE