Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2007 Date of decision : October 04, 2011 State of Haryana ....Petitioner versus Bharat Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate, for respondent nos. 5 and 6 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 19.5.2008, notice of motion was issued to respondents no. 5 and 6 only. The said order is reproduced hereinunder:- “Respondents were found innocent by the police on investigation. However, on prosecution application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were ordered to be summoned as additional accused vide order dated 12.12.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. The said order was, however, set aside by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 10.05.2007 which has been impugned in the instant revision petition, at the hands of State of Haryana. Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2007 -2- Respondents No. 2 and 4 are sisters of husband of the complainant, whereas respondents no. 1 and 3 respectively are their husbands. From age of respondents no. 2 and 4, it is apparent that their marriage had taken place long before the marriage of the complainant with their brother. Respondent no. 1 to 4 are residing in Gurgaon and the matrimonial home of the complainant is in Delhi. No specific allegations were made in the detailed FIR against respondents no. 1 to 4. Accordingly, no case for interference in the instant revision petition is made out qua respondents no. 1 to 4. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed qua respondents no. 1 to 4. Respondent no. 5 is elder brother of husband of the complainant. Respondent no. 6 is wife of respondent no. 5. There are specific allegations against them in the FIR as well as in the statement of complainant made in the Court. Notice of motion to respondents No. 5 and 6 only for 08.08.2008.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there are specific allegations against respondents no. 5 and 6 in the FIR as well as in the statement of complainant made as witness in the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 contended that the complainant in the witness box reiterated the version stated by her in the FIR on the basis of which respondents no. 5 and 6 were also found innocent by the police. It was also contended that there should be sufficient evidence to convict the additional accused who are sought to Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2007 -3- be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, there is no sufficient evidence against respondents no. 5 and 6. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on judgments of this Court in Paramvir @ Happy vs. State of Haryana, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 408; Ganesha vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) and Dr. Sant Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 719. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 319 Cr.P.C. comes into operation only where the police on investigation finds some accused to be innocent who is sought to be summoned as additional accused. The requirement of section 319 Cr.P.C. is that if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused (already facing trial) the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Consequently, what is to be seen at the stage of deciding application under section 319 Cr.P.C. is whether the person sought to be summoned as additional accused 'appears to have committed' an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused already facing trial. In the instant case, as noticed in the motion order, from the evidence on record, it appears that respondent nos. 5 and 6 have committed alleged offence under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. Consequently, there is sufficient ground to proceed against respondents no. 5 and 6. Impugned judgment of revisional court is unsustainable qua respondents no. 5 and 6 whereas the same has already been confirmed qua respondents no. 1 to 4 against whom the revision Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2007 -4- petition was dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Gurgaon is set aside qua respondents no. 5 and 6 only and order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon is restored qua respondents no. 5 and 6 only. It goes without saying that the instant revision petition qua respondents no. 1 to 4 already stands dismissed vide motion order dated 19.5.2008. Respondents no. 5 and 6 are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 8.11.2011. Nothing in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 04, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'