Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balram vs Daljeet And Others on 7 March, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CRR No. 752 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 752 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: .07.03.2014
Balram
....Petitioner
Versus
Daljeet and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,J. (Oral)
CRM No. 7763 of 2014 The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the criminal revision.
In the light of the averments made in the application, I find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay.
Prayer is allowed.
Delay of 107 days in filing the revision is condoned.
CRM disposed of.
CRR No. 752 of 2014This order shall dispose of the instant revision petition which is directed against the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in the light of which an application moved by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon respondents No. 1 to 4 as additional accused in case FIR No. 235 dated 07.08.2011 under Sections 148, 149, Nitin 2014.03.12 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 752 of 2014 -2- 307, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat has been declined.
Counsel for the petitioner has been heard and paper book has been perused.
The FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint made by the present petitioner namely Balram stating that he is an agriculturalist and is a resident of village Udeshipur. Complainant had further stated that Daljit, Bijender, Surender @ Nanha and Surender are the owners of a liquor vend near the bus stand of the village and villagers are wanting to get this liquor vend to be closed. It was further alleged that on account of such basis the liquor contractors had issued threat to the life of the petitioner/complainant. However, allegation is that on 06.08.2011 while the petitioner along with his cousin Sangeet son of Rai Singh was going to his land in village Udeshipur, and when they reached near brick kiln of Jaipal at about 5.30, p.m. Chichu son of Jagdish, and Bhura @ Monu son of Ved Pal and three other boys whose names were not known came on motor cycle and proclaimed that the complainant would be taught a lesson for getting the vend closed. As per allegations contended in the FIR and the prosecution version, there were specific allegations against the aforesaid persons namely Chichu and Bhura @ Monu for having inflicted injuries upon the complainant. It is against such backdrop that the FIR in question was registered on 07.08.2011.
The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved after a period of almost two years by the complainant for summoning the private respondents as additional accused by making out a case that it was of the instigation of the private respondents that the petitioner had been assaulted.
Nitin 2014.03.12 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 752 of 2014 -3-Such application has been dealt with by the Court below in terms of the following reasoning.
"PW-2 Balram, complainant got recorded his statement Ex. PA before the police that on 06.08.2011, when he alongwith his cousin brother namely Sanget son of Rai Singh was moving towards his field and when they reached near the Bhatta of Jaipal at about 5.30 p.m. Then accused facing trial came on a motorcycle with knife, country made pistols and Dao and they inflicted injuries upon his person they exclaimed that shall teach him lesson for making protest against wine shop. He also mentioned that prior to the occurrence there was some altercation between the controctors of wine shop namely Diljit Singh son of Poja Singh, Bijender Singh son of Hardeva, r/o Udesipur, Nanha son of Zile Singh, elder son of Dayal Singh, r/o Panchi Jattan, Tehsil Ganaur.
While, appearing as PW-2 complainant has stated to have given application before Deputy Commissioner, S.P. Sonepat, and in the office of Excise and Taxation Department against the liquor shop. In cross examination, he admitted to have not got mentioned the fact regarding moving the application against the owner of liquor shop. However, he asserted that the owner of liquor shop had threatened him at about 7/8.00 P.M. on 5/8/2011. He further clarified to have not moved any application before SHO, PS Ganaur or senior police officers regarding the threat tendered to him by the owners of the liquor shop. In the complaint also he has not mentioned that he has moved the application before Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, SP Sonepat as well as in Nitin 2014.03.12 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 752 of 2014 -4- the office of Excise and Taxation Department, Sonepat. FIR was lodged on 7/8/2011, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 17/7/2013 i.e. after the gap almost two years, even, then the complainant failed to procure the copies of the application allegedly moved by him before Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, SP Sonepat and in the office of Excise and Taxation Department. The prosecution has cited only the cousin brother of complainant as a witness of spot. The village Sarpanch, Panch or any other respectable person of village were not cited as witness neither the complainant named anybody except his cousin brother Sangeet in whose presence the aforementioned four persons had tendered threat against him.
In view of such facts and
circumstances, I find no ground to summon
Daljeet, Bijender, Surender @ Nanha and
Surender son of Dayal Singh for facing the trial, alongwith other accused, who are facing trial. Hence, application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed being meritless. "
A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623 has clearly held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and extraordinary power and is to be exercised sparingly. It was further held that same is not to be exercised only because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other persons may also be guilty and having committed the offence. It was further held that not only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court but in addition thereto it would require much stronger evidence than mere Nitin 2014.03.12 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 752 of 2014 -5- probability of the complicity of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. The test that has to be applied is one, which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if gone unrebutted would lead to conviction. In the absence of such situation the Courts should refrain from exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat declining the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is based on cogent reasoning. The Court has formed its opinion as regards non complicity of the respondents by recording valid reasons.
There is no merit in the instant petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE March 07, 2014 nitin Nitin 2014.03.12 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh