The legislative intent and object of Section 319 Cr.P.C. require compelling reasoning to array a petitioner as an accused, based on clear eye-witness testimony and sufficient evidence.

ORDER

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order of taking cognizance dated 14.12.2021 the quashed and set aside and in alternative it is also prayed that the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner may kindly be converted into bailable warrant.'

3. The issue in the present case is limited to the extent that an application was preferred by the respondent no. 2-Lukaram under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 145/2019 (C.I.S. No.95/18), which was allowed and cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 147, 365, 342, 323, 302/120B of IPC and Sections 3(2) (va), 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ ST Act and a warrant of arrest was also issued against the petitioner, aggrieved whereby, the present petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the final report qua the petitioner, so submitted by the police after completing the investigation, in relation to the aforementioned offences in question, did not find the petitioner to be involved in the crime in question, and therefore, his name was not included in the charge sheet so drawn up. And that, despite there being no material on record, nor availability of any evidence before the learned court below connecting the present petitioner with the crime in question, the learned court below arrayed the petitioner as an accused in this case and issued a warrant of arrest against him, while accepting the application preferred by the respondent no. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarabjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2009) 16 SCC 46, wherein it was observed as under:

' The extent of the power of a Sessions Judge to summon persons other than the accused to stand trial in a pending case came up for consideration before this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi MANU/SC/0094/1982 : 1983CriLJ159. Therein, this Court while holding that the provision confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the court added "this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken.

The observation of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is the question. The answer to these questions should be rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied.'

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State as well as Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assist