ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. The instant [ACT] under [SECTION]/[SECTION], [ACT] is directed against the order dated 19-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur in [CASE NUMBER] whereby, the application of petitioner [ENTITY] filed Under [SECTION], [ACT] has been rejected.
Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the accused-respondents and others gave beating to the petitioner and his family members after entering into his house on 23-9-2002 at about 6.00 p.m. An FIR being No, 533/2002 was lodged at 8.15 p.m. on the same night about the aforesaid occurrence by one [ENTITY] for offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT]. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of [ENTITY] for offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] against accused [ENTITY] only. The case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahpura for trial. After hearing both sides and upon a perusal of the materials placed on record, charges were framed against accused [ENTITY]. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses out of whom. P.W. 1 [ENTITY], P.W. 2 [ENTITY], P.W. 3 [ENTITY], P.W. 4 [ENTITY], P.W. 12 [ENTITY] and P.W. 13 have turned hostile. They did ot support the prosecution story. Other witnesses simply named the other accused persons. They did not specify any overt act on their part.
2. Petitioner submitted an application under [SECTION], [ACT] on 16-4-2005 stating that from the materials and evidence on record which has been recorded during trial, offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] are clearly made out against the accused persons. So, they may also be arraigned as additional accused. After hearing both the sides and upon secutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court declined to arraign the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 as the additional accused. It has been observed that arraigning non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the application filed under [SECTION], [ACT] was rejected. Hence, this revision petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the relevant record.
4. It is contended on the basis of [PRECEDENT] that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that although power under [SECTION], [ACT] should be sparingly exercised but where prosecution witnesses name certain persons as having been involved in a serious crime, their addition as accused in exercise of power would not be unwarranted.
5. In the said case, father of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR alleging commission of offences under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] by the appellants and one P. According to the complainant, three persons had taken away his daughter due to previous enmity with the object of committing rape upon her. The girl and P were found in Noida. The police found that the appellants were not involved in the case, therefore, charges were framed against only P. After examination of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 and the prosecutrix, Public Prosecutor filed an application under [SECTION], [ACT] for arraigning the appellants as additional accused. The trial Court allowed the application and summoned them as additional accused to stand trial. Revision filed was also dismissed by the High Court. While dismissing the appeal the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that evidence of the witnesses even without cross-examination would be prima facie material which would enable the Sessions Court to decide whether powers under [SECTION], [ACT] are to be exercised or not.
6. It is further contended on the basis of [PRECEDENT], that where there is no chance of conviction on the materials available there shall be no reason for interference in the order of the trial Court.
7. The power under [SECTION], [ACT] is discretionary power of the trial Court. The discretion exercised by the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with, unless it shows that the order refusing to implead the accused has been made mechanically or it is arbitrary or perverse. In the instant case the trial Court while refusing to arraign the additional accused has taken into account every aspect of the matter and entire material placed before it; more particularly the chances of conviction of petitioner who have been sought to be impleaded as additional accused. The trial Court has found case of the complainant full of contradictions on material points. The statements of the witnesses are not duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The trial Court has further found that chances of their conviction in the case are remote and bleak,
8. In [PRECEDENT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power Under [SECTION], [ACT] is discretionary and should be exercised only to achieve the criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. It was further held that the judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. The Apex Court has further held that the Court, while examining an application under [SECTION], [ACT] has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty of the Court to proceed against other persons. In a nutshell, it means that for exercise of discretion under [SECTION], [ACT] all relevant factors have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the persons sought to be added as accused.
9. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the case on identical facts and applying the test of the ratio laid down in [PRECEDENT] (supra), held that the trial Court is right in rejecting the application. The Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored that of the Magistrate by which the application seeking Implement of the persons sought to be arraigned as accused was rejected. The Apex Court has dealt with object of revisional jurisdiction in the case of [PRECEDENT] and has observed that object of revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the maintenance of law and on the other hand, in some undeserved hardship to the Individuals. Where the Court concerned does not appear to have committed any error or material irregularity or Impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed.
10. The learned trial Court has by a detailed and well speaking order dismissed the application filed by the complainant-petitioner under [SECTION], [ACT] The learned trial Court has considered the statements of the various prosecution witnesses and has arrived at the conclusion that from the oral evidence it cannot be said that the non-petitioners had indulged in the alleged offences and there are remote chances of their conviction on the evidence on record.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] , the revisional jurisdiction is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the well-considered view that the approach of the learned Court below is well reasoned and based on the guidelines and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court: In the face of the materials on record, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under [SECTION], [ACT]
13. Consequently, there being no pith and substance in this petition, the same deserves to be and is, hereby dismissed.