The trial court has the authority to summon additional persons under section 319 CrPC if evidence during trial establishes their involvement, regardless of the dismissal of the application under section 190 CrPC.

SURESH KAIT, J.

CRL M.A. No.9418 of 2015 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2633/2015

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 passed by learned ASJ-02/FTC New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts and remaining accused may be directed to be summoned by the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that vide FIR No.701/99, a case was registered on 26.09.1999 at PS Connaught Place for the offences punishable under sections 420/468/471/120B IPC against the accused persons, namely, Ranjodh Singh, Daljeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Yadvinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Karnail Singh. The accused Daljeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh were arrested by the police. Both the accused were Directors of the company M/s Neer Tara Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

3. The petitioner is appearing in person and submits that during investigation, the Investigating Officer was behind the blood of the petitioner and his wife, thus apprehending arrest the petitioner approached the District Court for anticipatory bail, but the same was declined. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and the same was considered and their arrest was stayed till further orders.

4. On 26.02.2000, the IO filed the chargesheet against the accused, namely, Daljeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh under section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, while recording in the chargesheet that the investigation has been conducted in the aforesaid FIR on the basis of the statements under section 161 CrPC and documents recovered by the IO.

5. Thereafter, on 07.04.2000, the IO filed a supplementary chargesheet against the accused Daljeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh wherein it is mentioned that accused namely Ranjodh Singh has expired and that further investigation will continue and very soon supplementary chargesheet will be filed.

6. The petitioner further submitted that on 25.04.2002, third chargesheet was filed wherein the petitioner and his wife were impleaded as co-accused while the other accomplices, named as under, were not impleaded:-

i. Veeru Dhasmana,

ii. Virender Khanna,

iii. Shivinder Singh; and

iv. Rajiv Nayar.

7. Petitioner further submitted that the learned Trial Court issued summons against the petitioner and his wife and pursuant thereto they appeared and moved an application under section 190 CrPC. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2014, despite the fact that the concerned IO did not appear and gave no clarification, the concerned court passed the said order.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order dated 20.09.2014 by way of Criminal Revision No.108/14. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2015. The petitioner submits that in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, he has specifically mentioned the name of the above our persons, despite that the IO has not made the said persons as accused in the chargesheet. He submits that when during investigation if name of any of the accused come in the notice of the IO those persons have to be impleaded as accused.

9. The fact remains that on 25.04.2002, a supplementary chargesheet was filed against Jai Prakash Singh (petitioner herein) and his wife Smt. Chinta Singh. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.09.2003, summons were issued against them and they appeared before the Court. The learned MM vide its order dated 20.09.2014 passed the order as under:-

“File perused. Arguments on the application dated 04.07.2008 moved on behalf of accused J P Singh and Chita Singh have been heard. Application gone through. Accused J P Singh stated that there is sufficient evidence against other persons namely, Veeru Dhasmana, Virender Khanna, Shivinder Singh and Rajiv Nayar, however despite their involvement, the prosecution has not filed chargesheet against them. With these submissions, accused prays for summoning of the abovesaid persons in the present case as accused persons.

On the other han