IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 2959 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.2.2010 Bir Bhan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents Present: Mr Manjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr Kuldeep Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant- petitioner against the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) has been dismissed being devoid of merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 CrPC was liable to be allowed as specific role has been attributed to respondents-2 to 10 in the incident that occurred and on the basis of which FIR in the case has been registered. It is further submitted that the petitioner-complainant while appearing as PW1 had stated regarding involvement of respondents-2 to 10. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, gravely erred in declining the application. It is also submitted that though the trial of the case is over; however, the same would not preclude this Court to summon the additional 1 Criminal Revision 2959 of 2010 accused. In support, of his contention learned counsel cites Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh 2002(3) RCR (Cr) 191 (SC). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, also gone through the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in her impugned order dated 6.10.2009 has noticed that in the entire statement of the complainant-petitioner (PW1) there was no allegation about causing specific injuries and about specific role attributed to respondents-2 to 10. The petitioner had deposed that Sandeep and Hardeep sons of Bala, Rajpal son of Risala, Ramesh son of Manga, Santosh wife of Bala, Sudesh wife of Satpal and Sona wife of Hoshiara armed with Lathis had alighted from the tractor. The petitioner, while mentioning the names of the said persons, had also given the names of others who are facing trial and had been charge sheeted (challaned) by the Police. It was noticed that the petitioner further deposed that Ram Mehar son of Sardara raised a ‘lalkara’ and he (Ram Mehar), Bala and Kala fired shots from their guns and the remaining accused attacked them with their respective weapons. The petitioner further deposed that Kuldeep was having a lathi. It was observed that except this line that the assailants attacked them, there was no evidence attributing specific injuries and roles to the persons who were sought to be summoned. The name of Sonu son of Ram Mehar did not find a mention in the FIR even. A perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC revealed that during investigation, these persons were found to be not present at the time of the occurrence and that is why they were not challaned. Therefore, it was observed that it was wrong to say on the part of the prosecution that the 2 Criminal Revision 2959 of 2010 complainant attributed specific injuries and roles to the abovenamed persons. In the aforesaid circumstances, it may be noticed that no specific role or attribution has been alleged against respondents-2 to 10 who are sought to be summoned and during investigation they were found to be innocent. As such, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be erroneous which would warrant interference by this Court. In the case of Shashikant Singh (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was held by the Supreme Court that in case an additional accused is summoned to face trial along with other accused and before the additional accused could be proceeded against in the main case, the trial had concluded and the accused convicted, it would not make the summoning order inoperative and the person summoned would have to face trial. However, it may be noticed that in order to summon an additional accused, there has to be evidence and material which would indicate a reasonable prospect that such other persons who are to be summoned are likely to be convicted. Mere suspicion or involvement of the persons who are sought to be summoned, is not enough. The Court has to have a reasonable satisfaction that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in that case had committed an offence. Besides, for such offence, that other person who is to be summoned, could well be tried along with the accused who had already been arraigned as accused. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that there was no allegation of causing specific injuries and no specific role to the persons who were sought to be got summoned has been attributed. The said conclusion having been reached at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, would not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3 Criminal Revision 2959 of 2010 Besides, the case before the trial Court has already completed. Therefore, at this stage, to arraign respondens-2 to 10 as accused in the case is not warranted. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17.2.2010. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4