IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3321 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.12.2010 Manjinder Singh @ Goldi ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against the summoning order dated 26th August, 2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana vide which petitioner Manjinder Singh @ Goldi has been summoned as accused to face trial under Sections 420/120-B IPC. Notice of motion was issued on 14th January, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inquiry was conducted twice and in both the inquiries, the petitioner was not found involved. The first inquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana whereas in the second inquiry which was conducted on the basis of order passed by Punjab State Human Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police (City) Fatehgarh Sahib has categorically stated that the petitioner had not played any role in the Crl. Revision No. 3321 of 2009 -2- incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been summoned after a lapse of six years and there was no fresh ground to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. There was no other evidence available on record as statement made by the complainant had already been investigated by the police and the petitioner was not found involved in any manner. The statement of the complainant is merely reiteration of the earlier statement which has already been investigated by the police and he has been implicated being a government employee as petitioner is working as a teacher in Government School. Learned counsel also submits that although in the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana the petitioner was found innocent but subsequently in the fresh inquiry conducted against the petitioner, he was found to be involved. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint as well as impugned summoning order. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of joint application of the complainants. The matter was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana and the petitioner was found innocent in the investigation. Subsequently, a complaint was moved before the Punjab Human Rights Commission for re- investigation of the matter and on the basis of the order passed by Punjab Human Rights Commission, the inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (City) Fatehgarh Sahib wherein also the Crl. Revision No. 3321 of 2009 -3- petitioner was not found involved in the incident. A categoric finding has been given by Superintendent of Police (City) Fatehgarh Sahib that the petitioner was involved in the case just to put pressure upon him to recover the amount allegedly to be paid to the complainant. The impugned order has been passed without there being any fresh evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to show anything from the record as to what was the outcome of the fresh inquiry conducted against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 (SC) has observed as under: “ The basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the Crl. Revision No. 3321 of 2009 -4- other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only to discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve 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. A 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. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against each other persons.” For summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C as an additional accused, there has to be some evidence before the Court which would indicate the complicity of the person who is sought to be summoned or some material should have come on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused is likely Crl. Revision No. 3321 of 2009 -5- to be involved and his conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of his facing the trial and the onslaught of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The mere statement ipso facto cannot form the basis of summoning the person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the statement of the complainant is merely reiteration of the earlier statement which has been investigated by the police on two different occasions and there was no fresh material available with the trial Court to order summoning of the petitioner. The statement of complainant is full of improvements and contradictions and the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without recording any finding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that the Courts are to see whether there are prima facie compelling circumstances to convict the proposed accused and he can be convicted on the basis of that evidence. In view of the facts mentioned above, there is merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is allowed and impugned summoning order dated 26.8.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana is set aside. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE December 01, 2010. raghav