IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Urgency Application No.2052 of 2011 In Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.375 of 2011 Rao Fawwad Ahmad @ Pappu S/o Sri Rao Shamshad Ali Khan R/o J-101, Jay Enclave Link Road, Geeta Colony, Delhi … Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Rao Etmad Ali S/o Sri Rao Mohammad Umar Khan R/o Village Salempur, P.S. Rampur, District Haridwar …Respondents Sri R.S. Sammal, Advocate, present for the petitioner Smt. Mamta Bisht, AGA, present for the State Dated: May 26, 2011 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 13.9.2010 passed by Sessions Judge/III F.T.C., Haridwar in S.T. No.345 of 2000, State vs. Akhtar and others, relating to offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, whereby the said court has summoned the petitioner Rao Fawwad Ahmad @ Pappu u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to copy of the first information report, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. Complainant Rao 2 Etmad Ali has nowhere named the petitioner that he was involved in the crime nor any charge sheet was filed after investigation against the present petitioner. The trial court has summoned the petitioner by exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement of PW1 Rao Etmad Ali and PW4 Smt. Rakshi. PW1 Rao Etmad Ali had no reason as to why he did not name the petitioner in the first information report if he was involved in the crime. It is stated by him that two persons came in a motorcycle and fired the shot at Sovaan Ali. It is pointed out that complainant is uncle of the present petitioner. Had the petitioner been involved in commission of crime, the complainant should have no difficulty in naming the known person. PW3 Rao Sajid Alikhan, PW5 Abaad Khan and PW6 Javed have also not named the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that power u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised, with due diligence. If the witnesses are allowed to improve the prosecution story at the time of recording the evidence in court who name any other person, there must be strong corroboration for complicity of such person and only then one must be summoned u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. Otherwise there are chances of abuse of power exercised u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds that the trial court has erred in law in summoning the petitioner Rao Fawwad Ahmad @ Pappu to face the trial in Sessions Trial No.345/2000. Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.9.2010 passed in 3 Sessions Trial No.345/2000 is quashed. The trial court may proceed with the trial as against the accused already charge sheeted. (Urgency Application No.2052/2011 stands disposed of). (P.C. Pant,J.) 26.5.2011 Rajni