Crl.Rev.No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2010 Swaran Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as aditional accused was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was sufficient material available on record against respondents No.2 and 3 to proceed against them as additional accused in the trial. The trial Court had erred in dismissing the application under Crl.Rev.No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- ““Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, 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, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 2)Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard. Crl.Rev.No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) 3 b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Thus, the Court has the power to summon any person as an additional accused if during trial it transpires that the said person is also liable to be tried with the accused against whom challan has been presented. In the present case, after investigation, challan was presented against Rakesh Kumar son of Ramesh Kumar and Dilbagh Singh son of Sucha Singh (respondent No.2). From the statement of PW-1 Swaran Singh, it appears that the daughter of respondent No.2 Sucha Singh was having some relations with Prem Kumar. The said Prem Kumar was friendly with the son of Swaran Singh PW-1 as well as Rakesh Kumar. Sucha Singh believed that the son of PW-1 was responsible for elopement of his daughter. He and his wife (respondents No.2 and 3) threatened them that they would not spare his son. However, a perusal of the cross-examination of the said witness reveals that a case was registered against Prem Kumar and his relatives regarding relationship of Rajni with Prem Kumar. Prem Kumar was not related to him. In the said case, his statement or the statement of his son Tarsem Singh was not recorded. PW-4 Mohinder Kaur, on the other hand, has deposed that they were not in speaking terms with Dilbagh Singh and his family and had not gone to their house to enquire about their son. Crl.Rev.No. 1529 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Dilbagh Singh, Sucha Singh and Jaswant Kaur had threatened that their son shall not be allowed to live. Hence, at this stage, there was no material available on record against respondents No.2 and 3 to summon them as additional accused. It appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sought to be summoned because of their relationship with accused Dilbaghh Singh. Respondents No.2 and 3 have been found innocent during investigation of the case. Hence, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2010 anita