Under Section 319 Cr.P.C., a person can be summoned as an accused only when the court finds that the evidence on record would reasonably lead to the conviction of the person sought to be summoned. In cases involving heinous crimes, the court may issue a warrant of arrest for the attendance of the accused at the first instance.

Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.5.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.8/2014 whereby the learned trial Court exercising its power conferred upon it under Section 319 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 302 and 302/34 IPC and summoned him by way of warrant of arrest.

3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No.402/2013 came to be registered on 4.12.2013 at Police Station Navalgarh (District Jhunjhunu) for offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34 IPC against petitioner and some other persons and after investigation charge-sheet for offences under Section 302, 341, 325/34 IPC was filed against one Shri Norang Ram, Nanu Devi and Shri Om Prakash but charge-sheet was not filed against petitioner. During the course of trial of the accused against whom charge-sheet was filed statements of as many as 10 prosecution witnesses were recorded. At this stage an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the prosecution with a prayer that from the evidence produced during trial involvement of the petitioner in the incident is made out and, therefore, cognizance may also be taken against him and he may be summoned through warrant of arrest. Reply to the application was filed by the accused who were already facing trial and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order in the manner already stated. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision petition.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the material available on record, it is revealed that after thoroughly considering the evidence collected during investigation involvement of the petitioner was not found in any manner in the incident and, therefore, charge-sheet was not filed against him. It was further submitted that no steps were taken by the prosecution or the complainant at the stage of Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner and thereafter there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. It was also submitted that even from the evidence so far produced during the course of trial it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the incident in any manner and there is likelihood of conviction of the petitioner if he is tried for the offences for which cognizance has been taken against him. It is well settled legal position that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. a person can be summoned as an accused only when Court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned, but in the present case the aforesaid requirement is not fulfilled at all. It was also contended that if by any reason the Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order, then an order converting the arrest warrant issued by the Court below into bailable warrant may be passed as it is well settled legal position that attendance of an accused before the Court may be secured at the initial stage by summons or at the most bailable warrant and not directly by a warrant of arrest.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Vikas Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No.3183/2013) decided on 02.09.2014, Rajol & ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2010 (5) ADJ 628, Brindaban Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in 2990 (3) SCC 329, Michael Machado & Anr. v. CBI & Anr. reported in 2000 (3) SCC 262, Mohd.Shafi v. Mohd.Rafiq & Anr. reported in 2007 (14) SCC 544, Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2004