The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in exercising the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused persons in a criminal case, and the requirement of material sufficient to form an independent opinion on the possibility of conviction.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.07.2015 by which the petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner who is the informant in Chutia P.S. Case No. 79 of 2009, seeking summoning of Rinky Devi, Jitendra Kumar and Satya Narayan Lal in S.T. No. 390 of 2011 was dismissed.

2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no limitation on the powers of the Court under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person as an accused to face the trial with the other accused persons if his involvement in commission of the crime appears in course of any inquiry or trial.

3. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the order dated 14.07.2015 impugned in the present proceeding is well founded and in fact the petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed at a stage when S.T. No. 390 of 2011 was posted for judgment and therefore, the said petition was not maintainable.

4. In the order dated 14.07.2015, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi has observed as under:

“From perusal of the case record, it also appears that in the first information report the informant did not allegate anyone and after three months he has filed a compliant before the Ld. C.J.M. Ranchi allegated these three persons along with the accused persons who are facing trial. It is also apparent from the record that the deceased also did not allegate anyone in her dying declaration. All the witnesses who have implicated these persons in their deposition are the close relative of the informant and it is very surprising that if there is any demand of dowry then why the informant did not disclose this fact in the first information report dated 27.01.2009 and why he has filed this at the very much belated stage. So in my view the implication of aforesaid three persons namely Rinky Devi, Dewar Jitendra Kumar and Mama Sasur Satya Narayan Lal is after thought to make offence grievous and to unnecessary harass the distant relatives of the accused persons. Accordingly, the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution is hereby disposed of for no merit in the petition.”

5. What transpires on a reading of the order dated 14.07.2015 is that the learned trial Judge has taken note of the various previous proceeding in relation to opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and has discussed the materials which according to the informant has come during the trial against them.

6. The powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised cautiously and in exceptional cases only when there is material sufficient to form an independent opinion on the possibility of conviction of a person against whom the petition was filed.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation in the operating portion of the order dated 14.07.2015 on demand of dowry by the accused persons is prejudicial to the informant.

8. I am of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. The trial has already concluded and the order declining the petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. would in no way affect the judgment in S.T. No. 390 of 2011.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition and accordingly,

Criminal Revision No. 959 of 2015 is dismissed.

10. However, before closing this case I shall indicate that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 has not been implemented by the Court.

11. In a miscellaneous application filed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that if within six months of the order passed by the Courts including the High Court a fresh order extending the interim order was not passed by the Courts, the original interim order shall stand vacated. The present is one such case in which the learned Court below unmindful of the statutory responsib