IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 841 of 2010 Manjeet Singh and others. .……Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Date of Decision : 8.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2010 State Vs. Chandra Prakash @ Raju and others, whereby the Court has proceeded against the present applicants in the criminal trial. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.11.2009 at about 4 a.m. in the morning, ten persons, who have been named in the FIR went to the house of one Ravi Kumar and dragged him outside, who was subsequently killed. An FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sitarganj, district Udham Singh Nagar at about 3.30 p.m. Consequently, a case was registered as Case Crime No. 188 of 2009 under Section 147, 148, 364, 302, 201 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(2), of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On investigation made by the Police, a charge sheet was filed only against four persons, namely, Chandrabhan Prasad @ Raju, Sarbjeet Singh, Sandeep Singh and Sukhman @ Sukhwant. The persons who are before this Court were not named in the charge sheet. However, subsequently, during the trial when P.W.1 Sri Govind (the brother of the deceased) and P.W. 2 Sri Virendra Kumar, who were the eye witness of the incident have stated that the applicants went to the house of Ravi Kumar, dragged him outside and subsequently killed him. On the basis of the statements of these two witnesses, the Court has proceeded under Section 319 of 2 Cr.P.C. and passed order therein, which is presently being challenged by the present applicants. 4. It is by now well settled that the powers given to the Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are extra ordinary powers and being extra ordinary powers, they have to be used very sparingly and only if in a case which is befitting in order to meet the ends of justice and in order to reach a just decision. 5. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has stated that the Court must have sufficient and cogent reasons before it passes an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Mere ipse dixit will not serve the purpose. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 141, where the Apex Court has reiterated this settled position. 6. It is indeed true that the powers of the Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are extra ordinary powers and have to be used sparingly and in only a befitting case as referred above. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where two eye witnesses of the incident were present, who have deposed before the Court about the incident and have clearly implicated the present applicants and also looking at the stage of the trial which has just proceeded inasmuch as the case is numbered as Session Trial No. 56 of 2010 only, therefore, here is no delay in the matter. Moreover, the two witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. Their deposition, their body language, etc. has been examined by the Court. The trial Court was definitely in a better position to have appreciated the evidence given by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Looking at all these relevant aspects, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a fit case which requires interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as the Court below has rightly exercised its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. There is, however, no question of any abuse of the process of Court. 7. The instant C-482 application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 3 8. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 8.9.2010 Rathour