The statutory requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be fulfilled before allowing parties to be arrayed to a trial.

JUDGMENT

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Criminal Revision Petition No. 147/2022:

'It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the petition of the humble petitioner may kindly be allowed and the Impugned order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge no.4, Bikaner, (Rajasthan), in sessions case No.238/2020 be quashed.'

Criminal Revision Petition No. 117/2022:

'It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.238/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to dismissed and the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the alleged charges.'

3. The limited issue in the present petitions, which falls for consideration before this Court, is whether the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2022, has erred in allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., preferred by the complainant before it.

4. It is contended by Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prashant Panwar appearing on behalf of the petitioner (CW No.147/2022) and Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner (CW No.117/2022) that the learned Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, and incorrectly permitted arraignment of the present petitioners as accused in the case, while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the complainant.

4.1 Learned counsel Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered in Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706; S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 226; Sarabjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2009) 16 SCC 46; Yusuf Chimpa & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1864; Vishambhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1746, Phula Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2011 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1567; Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1605; Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2014 Cr. L.R. (SC) 310 and; Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and contend that the learned Court below did not commit any error in allowing the aforementioned application.

6. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case and the plethora of judgments cited at the Bar.

7. This Court finds that common purport of the case laws cited on behalf of the petitioners, which do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners, is that the statutory requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be fulfilled before allowing parties to be arrayed to a trial. This Court further observes that the learned Court below has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only after being satisfied with the relevant evidences placed before it, which is reflected in the impugned order, wherein the petitioners were alleged to have been involved in the crime under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, and the same was stated by the complainant before the Police Authorities in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but for some reason, it was not mentioned in the F.I.R.

8. The said impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is therefore based on sound reasoning and logical findings, and after appreciating relevant precedent laid down by the