CRR No.1095 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.1095 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2009 Attar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has impugned the order, passed by Special Judge, Tarn Taran, rejecting his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused. The petitioner made a complaint to the police that on 9th July, 2006, Amarjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Paramjit Singh, Simarjit Kaur and Sital Singh, publicly hurled abuses at the petitioner using derogatory words. According to the petitioner, he is a Majbi Sikh by caste while the accused are Jat Sikhs. Resultantly, FIR No.140 dated 9th September, 2006 was registered under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after investigation, submitted challan against Paramjit Singh and Simarjit Kaur. However, other three accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, CRR No.1095 of 2009 2 Baljit Singh and Jaswinder Singh were found innocent by the police. The instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on the ground that complainant Attar Singh had named five persons as accused in the FIR but they had been let off by the investigating agency. The application was declined by Special Judge, Tarn Taran on the ground that allegations being general in nature, there was no ground to summon the additional accused as sought by the petitioner. The said order has been impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the initial version given by the complainant, there was specific allegations against Amarjit Singh, Baljit Singh and Jaswinder Singh. The police had exonerated them without any reason. According to the counsel, the court has ample power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon three additional accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A perusal of the complaint initially lodged by the petitioner undoubtedly shows that the allegations levelled in the same are quite general in nature. No specific role has been attributed to the accused. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to summon additional accused as sought by the petitioner. Moreover, investigation of the police cannot be lightly brushed aside. Undoubtedly, the court has CRR No.1095 of 2009 3 power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case. But this power is to be exercised within the parameters envisaged by the statutory provision. In the judgment Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “The basic requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected during trial or in the inquiry regarding two aspects: First, that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence. Second, that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence.” In another case reported as Brindaban Das and others Vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 (1) Recent Apex Judgments 400, the Apex Court set-aside the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and held as follows:- “18. The common thread in most matters where the use of discretion is in issue is that in the exercise of such discretion each case has to be considered on its own set of facts and circumstances. In matters relating to invocation of powers under Section 319; the Court is not merely CRR No.1095 of 2009 4 required to take note of the fact that the name of a person who has not been named as an accused in the F.I.R. has surfaced during the trial, but the Court is also required to consider whether such evidence would be sufficient to convict the person being summoned. Since issuance of summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. entails a de novo trial and a large number of witnesses may have been examined and their re-examination could prejudice the prosecution and delay the trial, the Trial Court has to exercise such discretion with great care and perspicacity. Although, a somewhat discordant note was struck in Rajender Singh's case (supra) the views expressed in the majority of decisions of this Court on the point subscribe to the view that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice. 19. The fulcrum of which the invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. rests is whether the summoning of persons other than the named accused would make such a difference to the prosecution as would enable it not only to prove its case but to also secure the conviction of the persons summoned.” In my considered view, the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court are not met in the instant case and thus there is no ground for summoning additional accused. It cannot be said, on the basis of statement of the complainant that there is reasonable possibility of conviction of the additional accused sought to be summoned by the CRR No.1095 of 2009 5 complainant. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction of this court in the impugned order. The revision petition is thus hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 30, 2009 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No