Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 31.8.2010 Bhoop Singh ... Petitioner Versus Rajesh & Ors. ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the complainant- petitioner. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.3. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/complainant – Bhoop Singh has preferred this revision against the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which he dismissed the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Partap and Rajesh as additional accused for facing trial alongwith other accused. At the time of arguments this revision petition was not pressed against Partap Singh and learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to Rajesh. FIR No. 52 dated 7.3.2006 was registered in Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, under Sections 148, 341, 367 and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC on the statement of the present petitioner. He narrated therein that about three months before the present occurrence Parveen, daugther of his brother Ram Kishan, was teased by Vinay accused regarding which compromise was effected in the village. About 3-4 days before this occurrance that Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) -2- accused again used untolerable words for her for which a protest was lodged with Partap Singh, father of that accused. Thereafter another compromise was effected and on that account vinay was nursing a grudge against him. On the day of occurrence he alongwith his partner Rampal and Kishan was going towards his office when they were way laid by Vinay @ Monu and his companions. They put him in their car after Vinay put his revolver on his ear and thereafter they proceed towards Bahalgarh. He was given beatings with wooden Bittas. He was taken near Sardar Patel School of Village Khewra where Raghbir and Rajesh were also present. He was given beatings by Vinay with the help of wooden Bittas whereas Rajesh and Ragbhir gave fist blows and slaps. He raised alarm, which attacted his brother Ram Kishan and Virender. Thereafter all the accused escaped from the spot. During the investigation Rajesh and Raghbir were found innocent. The challan was presented against the other accused and the trial Court proceed with their trial. In the course of trial statements of the complainant PW-1, Ram Kishan PW-2, Virender Kumar PW4 and Ram Phal PW-5 were recorded. Thereafter, the above said application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, which was dismissed, vide aforesaid order, by the trial Court. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court committed an illegality by dismissing the application on the ground that the evidence produced against the person, who is required to be summoned as additional accused, must be sufficient for his conviction. From the evidence so produced it appear that Rajesh committed the offences Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) -3- as mentioned in the FIR, for which he is liable to be tried along with already arrainged accused. In support of his contentions he cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1022. Section 319 of the Code is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. Though it confers a power of wide amplitude, yet it is requird to be exercised very sparingly. The same should be exercised only when the compelling reason exists for taking action against the person against whom action had not been taken earlier. There is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against the other persons. If a person has not been charge sheeted, he may come within the purview of description of such a person, as contained in Section 319 of the Code. Mere existence of prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas a prima facie view may be sufficient for taking cognizance of offence. However, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227, the Court must consider the entire material on the record to form an opinion that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to a judgment of conviction. Still a higher standard is set up for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. The ingredients thereof viz (i) an extraordinary case (ii) a case of sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, should be satisfied. There must be possibility of the accused being convicted on the basis of evidence brought on the record before he can be summoned as additional accused. It is not, Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) -4- therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of a such person or that there is some material against that person with description, that the inherent power would be used by the Court under Section 319 of the Code. It was held by Apex Court in the above said ruling that it must appear to the Court from the evidence that some one not arrayed as an accused appears to have committed an offence. In other words from the evidence it need only appear to it that someone else has committed an offence under Section 319 of the Code. The expression 'appears' indicates an application of mind by the Court to the evidencethat has come before it and then taking a decision to proceed under Section 319 of the Code or not. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. The finding was to be recorded, before summoning any additional accused, that there was sufficient evidence against him to convict him and not only that a passing referrence has been made by the witnesses in their statements. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that in this part of the Country there is a tendency on part of the complainant party to throw the net wider and involve near and dears of the actual accused. The same appears to have been done in this case, so far as Rajesh is concerned. The only part attributed to him is that he gave fist blows and slaps to the complainant. But when the complainant was examined in the Court he tried to exeggerate the matter by deposing that Rajesh had given kick blows also and during his cross-examination he stated that those kick blows were given on the chest. Admittedly, no injury was found on the chest of the complainant. Crl. Rev. No. 2261 of 2009 (O&M) -5- According to the complainant this part of the occurrence was witnesses by Varinder Kumar PW-4. That witness did not support the version of the complainant that Rajesh had given fist blows, kick blows or slaps to the complainant. He stated that he had seen only Raghbir giving kick blows to the complainant and all other accused were hitting the complainant with the help of wooden sticks. When such is the case, it cannot be said that from the evidence produced during the trial it appears that Rajesh also committed the offences as mentioned in the FIR along with other accused. There is no such illegality in the order of the trial Court. The same, therefore, cannot be interfered with, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The revision is dismissed, accordingly. August 31, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge