IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that strong evidence is required to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for consistency in the complainant's statements.

ORDER :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh by which the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C and refused to take cognizance against the respondents No.2 & 3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.2021, the complainant petitioner submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh stating therein that the respondent Satpal who is maternal father-in-law and Radheyshyam who is close relative of Satpal, used to visit him. A few days back, when the complainant was taking bath, the accused Radheyshyam took her video and started blackmailing her. It was alleged that the accused Radheyshyam used to come to her home and molest her. It was alleged that on 14.12.2020, the accused Anup and Radheshyam forcibly took her in a car to Hanumangarh where, she was intoxicated and thereafter, the accused Anup and Radheyshyam committed rape with her. It was also alleged that the accused persons snatched her mobile and took away her gold ornaments.

3. On the basis of above complaint, the police registered FIR No.82/2021 at Police Station Goluwala, District Hanumangarh. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the accused Anup but exonerated the respondents No.2 & 3.

4. During trial, the present petitioner was examined in Court as PW/1. After examination, the complainant petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 & 3. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 08.03.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed grave error of law in refusing to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 & 3. It is argued that the complainant petitioner right from inception i.e. in the FIR, in the statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C, has consistently averred that respondent No.3 Radheysham and Anup both committed rape with her. The petitioner also showed the site where the offence was committed and in the site plan has also been marked X where the accused committed rape. It is argued that the investigating officer has exonerated the accused respondent no.3 on the ground that no mobile location of said accused was found at the site and the alleged video clip prepared by the accused respondent no.3 was not submitted by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in her court statement as PW/1 has specifically averred that the respondent no.3 Radheyshyam and accused Anup both committed rape with her and therefore, respondent no.3 involvement cannot be denied at all but the learned trial court refused to take cognizance against the respondent no.3 on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that the police after thorough investigation had filed chargesheet against the accused Anup and exonerated the respondents No.2 & 3. The investigating officer has given details reasons for exoneration as their presence could not be verified. It is argued that the complainant went with the accused Anup on her own free will with all the ornaments and she was recovered from the house of Anup. In fact, the complainant went to the police station and filed an application on 11.12.2020 stating that her husband may kill her. It is submitted that respondent No.2 Satpal is complainant’s maternal father-in-law and Radheshyam is near relative of Satpal. Even the owner of the car as well as driver of the vehicle have stated that Anup and Kiran both went in the car, therefore, the respondents No.2 and 3 had no involvement in the alleged offence, and the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent placed