Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 Date of Decision: September 17, 2008 Surinder Pal & another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioners, who stand summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face prosecution for offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC, Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 : 2 : have filed this revision petition to impugn the said order. The petitioners were shown in column No.2 in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Amarjit Dhingra has now been examined as a prosecution witness and upon conclusion of his examination-in- chief, the prosecution moved an application for summoning the petitioners as an additional accused for their trial with accused Zishin Arora and Parvesh Kumari, who were facing prosecution in this case. Amarjit Dhingra (PW-1) has deposed that he gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter Jai Bharti with Zishin Arora. He has further deposed that about six months prior to the occurrence, Surinder Pal (petitioner No.1), Zishin Arora, Parvesh Kumari and Bhavneesh Arora (petitioner No.2) had raised demand of Rs.1,50,000/- to start their boutique business. On refusal, these persons had started harassing the daughter of the witness. As per PW-1, his daughter had come to his house on 2.9.2006 to ask for Rs.50,000/- for starting of optical business. The witness had sent her back saying that he will make arrangement. The daughter left telling the father that she was being harassed by the above-named four persons. Having noticed this version of the witness, Sessions Judge has simply recorded that from the statement and the documents attached with the challan, it is evident that petitioners Surinder Pal and Bhavneesh Arora had been harassing the deceased and, thus, has summoned them to face trial as an additional accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that summoning of an additional accused to face trial is an extra-ordinary power and is required to be used sparingly. Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments has prescribed the standard which must be Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 : 3 : met before additional accused is summoned to face trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order certainly is cryptic in its nature and does not give any indication if the court, while summoning the petitioners, as an additional accused, had satisfied itself from the record that the evidence now produced on record would meet the standard as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Simply stating that from the statement and the documents, it is evident that petitioners had been harassing the deceased would not be sufficient to indicate if the court has applied its mind to the evidence in the light of legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75, court has given guidelines for exercise of this discretion. This case was cited before the Trial Court besides other judgments. In Michael Machado's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that basic requirement of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the enquiry that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It was further held that it is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence. In other word the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects firstly, that the person has committed an offence and secondly that for such an offence the other person as well can be tried alongwith already arraigned accused. Viewed in this background of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 : 4 : is to be seen if the evidence that has been given can lead to reasonable satisfaction to the effect that the petitioners have committed an offence and that they can be tried alongwith the persons already arraigned as accused in this case. No doubt, what is conferred under this Section on the Court is a discretion and this discretion is to be exercised to achieve criminal justice. It was also observed in Michael Machado's case (supra) that quality of evidence before the Court should be such a type that a Court could even be hopeful that there was reasonable prospect of newly added accused being convicted. The trial court apparently has not appreciated the evidence and the material from the point of view of standard as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado's case (supra). As already observed, this is an extra-ordinary power and is required to be used sparingly. Simply because witness has deposed that petitioners had also harassed the deceased apparently would not be sufficient material to satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado's case (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set-aside. The case would go back to the trial court to re-do the exercise and for deciding afresh to see if the evidence that has been led before the court would satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado's case (supra) or the other judgments that may be placed before the court and then to decide if the petitioners are required to be summoned or not. Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 : 5 : It is made clear that the court would be at liberty to pass any order in accordance with law as no opinion on merit is being expressed by this court. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. September 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE