The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., requiring strong and cogent evidence to summon accused persons not named in the charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 10th February, 2023 which was signed on 21st February, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 569 of 2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The petitioner, who is appearing In Person before this Court has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against four named accused and two unknown persons. Though all the six accused persons have been assigned the role in committing the alleged offence in furtherance of common intention, yet some of the accused have been attributed specific role. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet only against the three accused, who were named in the F.I.R. and exonerated one named accused and two other accused who were not named in the F.I.R. After filing of the charge-sheet before the court concerned, the cognizance was also taken for the very offence under which the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions also framed the charge and trial was commenced. The informant (the petitioner in this case) was examined before the learned trial court as PW-1. The informant in his statement thoroughly corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. and also attributed the specific role to some of the accused and general and omnibus role to other accused. All the six accused have been attributed role in committing the alleged offence but the learned trial court without taking into consideration the testimony of the informant, who was also the injured eye-witness whose testimony holds much significance has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that only touchstone to summon the accused is whether the case for trial is found against the accused who have been attributed role in commission of the offence during trial even at the stage of examination-in-chief. The medical evidence also corroborates the statement of informant, who is injured eyewitness. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the following case laws:

(i) Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 632

(ii) Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2021 SC 1513

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the petitioner who is appearing In Person before this Court and contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court bears no infirmity and needs no interference as the same has been passed in view of appreciation of the testimony of the witness.

4. I have heard the petitioner appearing In Person and learned A.P.P. for the State.

5. The matrix of the prosecution case are that the informant, namely, Manoranjan Prasad Sinha gave the written information with the police station concerned alleging therein that on 17th October, 2017 at 10 o’ clock of day time, he was cooking food in his kitchen. In the meantime on the issue of refusal for the whitewash, Amit Poddar @ Ranjit Poddar, Ramendra Poddar, Renu Poddar, Ravi Shankar Prasad and two other persons had come with intent to commit murder of the informant and his son Subham Sinha. However, the informant and his son both managed to escape having intruded in the house but all these accused persons also intruded in the house and assaulted them. On raising alarm, the persons of the locality gave information to the police. The police came there and the informant and his son were rushed to the hospital.

6. This written information was registered as Dhurwa (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 242 of 2017 under Sections 448, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Amit Poddar @ Ranjit Poddar, Ramendra Poddar, Renu Poddar, Ravi Shankar Prasad and two other persons.

7. The I.O. after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accuse