Crl. Misc. No. M-24890 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24890 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 25.2.2010 Santosh Devi ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, DAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 11.9.2008 passed by ACJM, Narnaul, whereby, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of additional accused was declined and revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific allegations are there against the respondents in the FIR as well as specific attribution supported by medical evidence is also there which is sufficient to summon respondents No.2 to 4 as an additional accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1022 and Ram Pal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 131 to Crl. Misc. No. M-24890 of 2009 (2) support his contention. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the orders passed by both the Courts below and statement made by the complainant at the time of moving an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There was no additional evidence for summoning these respondents as additional accused as it was merely reiteration of earlier grounds on the basis of which these accused were found innocent. This was neither a ground before the trial Court nor before the appellate Court that any additional evidence was there for summoning them as an additional accused and simply by making statement for summoning as an additional accused is no ground and no material is there on record for calling these respondents as additional accused. During investigation, police recorded the statement of witnesses and thoroughly investigated the case. It was found that Munni was falsely implicated by the complainant party whereas she was present on her official duty at that time. The power to summon any person as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is the discretionary power of the trial Magistrate but said discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly and with great care and caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. It is to be exercised only when there is legal evidence on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence. The words “it appears” are not be read lightly before exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This power is an extra ordinary power which is conferred on the trial Magistrate and that power should be used sparingly and only if compelling circumstances and reasons exist. In the present case only statement of one prosecution witness was recorded by the trial Court and he is yet to be cross-examined. His Crl. Misc. No. M-24890 of 2009 (3) evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 762 has held that “before a Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must satisfy that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at, inter alia, upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness.” The mere statement, ipso facto, can not form the basis of summoning the person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the scope of interference in the revision petition is very limited and no such evidence has come before the trial Court for summoning of additional evidence. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is dismissed. February 25, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) reena/pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No