1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1799 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 *** Amril Lal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. Chankya Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused by the trial Court to face trial along with other accused by means of Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.8.2008, which has been impugned in this revision petition. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.2005 a scuffle took place between two factions of village Garhpur Khalsa. Resultantly, FIR No.245 dated 24.10.2005 was registered under Sections 323, 325, 307 read with Section 34 IPC against Dharampal, Ram Mehar, Veerbhan and Ram Chand, pursuant to the statement made by Amrit Lal (the present petitioner). Likewise, a cross version was also recorded in the aforesaid FIR on 3.11.2005 on the basis of statement made by one Rajneesh Kumar against Hazoora singh, Sher Singh, Bir Singh and Sukhwinder Singh under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC while the present petitioner who was found innocent was placed in column No.2 by the investigating agency. The trial was commenced. Complainant Amril Lal appeared before the Court and after that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning of Ram Chander. Similarly, after recording the 2 testimony of Rajneesh, the complainant of the cross version, an application was filed seeking summoning of the present petitioner to face trial along with other accused. Vide the impugned order, as noticed above, the trial Court allowed the application of the prosecution and summoned Amrit Lal as an additional accused. Hence, the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book file carefully. The provisions of Section 319 of the Code confers an extra ordinary power and should not be easily resorted to. It is well settled that sweep of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is limited as it is an enabling provision which can be invoked only if there is convincing evidence disclosing the complicity of the person other than the person (s) already arraigned as accused. In this case it is the statement of Rajneesh Kumar which was made the basis of registration of cross version in the aforesaid FIR wherein after investigation the present petitioner was found innocent and was placed in column No.2 in the final report. A perusal of his statement makes it abundantly clear that he though stated that Amril Lal was also present at the spot, but he himself narrated therein that Amrit Lal stopped the assailants from causing injuries but the other accused kept on inflicting injuries to them. From a bare reading of whole of the complaint, it has been elicited out that no overt act was attributed to the present petitioner. It is only for the first time Rajneesh when appeared before the Court as PW1 named the present petition as the person who gave brick bats to Dharampal and Bir Bhan. An altogether contrary version has been propounded by the complainant, so far as involvement of present petitioner in the alleged offence is concerned, from the version initially given to the police which was made the basis of registration of cross version. It is not clear as to what prompted him not to attribute any role of the present petitioner, if he actually had been involved, in his initial version. Only by mentioning the name of a person as an accused, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the same. There has to be some other material on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused has complicity in the offence and her/his conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of facing the trial, which is missing in this case. Admittedly, persons of both sides are booked 3 in the cases and they are making every attempt to widen the net by involving more members of opposite side by omission and exaggerations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 (SC) has observed as under:- “11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the Court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.” 4 In the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Petition stands allowed accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 25,2009 Jiten