The power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence on record to form a prima facie opinion.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 30.10.2021, passed in Sessions Case No. 128/2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to invoke the Section 319 CrPC to summon the 7 (seven) nos. of persons as additional accused to face the trial.

2. I have heard Mr HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr M K Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, and the learned counsel for the State respondent No. 1.

3. The petitioner, herein, as an informant lodged an FIR dated 04.05.2014, against 24 nos. of accused persons and others named in the FIR, alleging that they trespassed into the house of the informant with weapons in their hands and tried to kill the petitioner to which she escaped and thereafter, the FIR-named accused persons looted away cash amount of Rs. 50,000, gold ornaments and also burnt down her house by pouring kerosene oil. On the facts, Matia PS Case No. 65/2014 under Section 120(B)/147/148/448/384/436/427/506 IPC was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid on 12.05.2016. The case proceeded for trial and after examination of all the witnesses and recording of statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC, the informant/petitioner through Public Prosecutor, filed a petition under Section 319 CrPC, as aforesaid, as the said respondents were not sent up by Police in the charge sheet. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, and considering the matters on record, rejected the petition, primarily on the grounds that except the informant/PW-1 and her brother/PW-8, none of the witnesses, supported the facts that these seven accused persons were also present with other accused persons, and the said PW-1 and PW-8 also did not state the same before the 10 during investigation and their statement is contradictory, and thirdly the petition was filed at the last stage of the trial, when statement of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC (except one) has been recorded and there is no merit in the petition.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that while accepting the charge sheet, no notice was issued to the informant, which is bad in law and during the course of trial, the petitioner/informant has stated the names of all above 7 (seven) respondents that they along with other accused persons committed the offence and she saw the incident.

5. Reliance has been placed upon the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 875/2021 (Manjeet Singh -Vs- State of Haryana), wherein specific guidelines have been issued as to under what circumstances, the Court can invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC. In the said decision, the Court has summarized all the findings of the earlier decisions and the law laid down in Hardip Singh -Vs- State of Punjab; (2014) 3 SCC 92, Md Isphani -Vs- Jogendra Chandak; (2017) 16 SCC 226, Rajesh -Vs- State of Haryana; (2019) 6 SCC 368 and the recent decision in the case of Sartaj Singh -Vs- State of Haryana; 2021 (4) Scale 227 and has held as below:-

"13. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions on the scope and ambit of the powers of the Court under Section 319 CrPC can be summarized as under:

(i) That while exercising the powers under Section 319 CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished;

(ii) for the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly;

(iii) the law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under the CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law;

(iv) to discharge duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go un