Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have also perused and considered the orders passed by the High Court as well as the learned Trial Court in depth.

6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that, in the present case, what is under challenge is the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the CrPC and to face the trial for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307 and 506 of the IPC. It is required to be noted that, in the present case, the original complainant­first informant specifically named ten persons as accused, including the appellants herein. However, thereafter after the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge­ sheet/challan against four accused persons only and no challan/charge­sheet was filed against the appellants herein. Nothing is on record whether at that time any specific closure report was submitted by the investigating officer or not. Nothing is on record whether at that stage an opportunity was given to the complainant/original informant to submit any protest application or not. Assuming that non­filing of the charge­ sheet/challan against the remaining accused named in the FIR can be said to be a closure report, in that case also, as per the settled proposition of law and more particularly, the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra), before accepting the closure report, the Magistrate is bound to issue notice to the complainant/original informant and the complainant/original informant is required to be given an opportunity to submit the protest application and, thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the complainant/original informant, the Magistrate may either accept the closure report or may not accept the closure report and direct to proceed further against those persons for whom the closure report was submitted. In the present case, nothing is on record that such a procedure was followed by the learned Magistrate. That, thereafter the trial proceeded against the four accused persons against whom the charge­sheet/challan was filed. During the trial, the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recorded. Both of them were even cross­examined. In the deposition, P.W.1 and P.W.2 specifically stated the overacts by the appellants herein and the role played by them and categorically stated that at the time of the incident/commission of the offence, the appellants herein were also present and they participated in the commission of the offence. That, thereafter, on the application submitted by the original complainant submitted under Section 319 of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case against the appellants herein and summoned the appellants herein to face the trial along with other co­accused. The said order has been confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the short question posed for the consideration of this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court was justified in summoning the appellants herein to face the trial in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the CrPC?

8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the learned Trial Court nor the High Court have committed any error in summoning the appellants herein to face the trial along with other co­accused. As observed hereinabove, the appellants herein were also named in the FIR. However, they were not shown as accused in the challan/charge­sheet. As observed hereinabove, nothing is on record whether at any point of time the complainant was given an opportunity to submit the protest application against non­filing of the charge­sheet against the appellants. In the deposition before the Court, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have specifically stated against the appellants herein and the specific role is attributed to the accused­appellants herein.