Crl. Revision No. 3351 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 3351 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.8.2011. Simarjit Kaur @ Veena .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the order dated 23.11.2010, whereby the application, moved by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Alka Sharma as an additional accused, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.5 was also liable to be summoned to face the trial as an accused as there was sufficient material on record to proceed against her. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, has submitted that the said accused had not been summoned to face the trial and the summoning order was not challenged by the complainant. In these circumstances, the Crl. Revision No. 3351 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was liable to be dismissed as the same had been moved with malafide intention just to harass the respondent No.5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant 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. Revision No. 3351 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, as per the above provision, the trial court may summon any person to face the trial as an accused if there is sufficient material available against the said person during trial to proceed against her. In the present case, the prosecutrix-complainant filed a complaint under Sections 376, 511, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents No. 2 to 5. Vide order dated 11.6.2009, accused Jatinder Kumar, Raj Kumar and Vijay Kumar were summoned to face the trail as accused and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Vide order dated 11.6.2009, the complaint against respondent No.5-Alka Sharma was dismissed. The complainant had not challenged the said order. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Alka Sharma- respondent No.5 is the wife of accused Jatinder Kumar. The case of the prosecutrix is that she knew Alka Sharma. The prosecutrix was employed with accused Jatinder Kumar. As the prosecutrix needed ` 30,000/- for domestic purposes, Alka Sharma told her to contact her. On 03.5.2008, prosecutrix along with Nasiro went to the house of Jatinder Kumar and then she was taken in a car by Jatinder Kumar where the other co-accused were also present. Raj Kumar, Jatinder Kumar and Vijay Kumar committed rape on the person of Crl. Revision No. 3351 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - the prosecutrix. Even otherwise from the statement of the prosecutrix (Annexur P-1) it does not transpire that accused facing trial had committed rape on her person in connivance with respondent No.5-Alka Sharma. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2011 Gurpreet