The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 319 of Cr. P.C in summoning a person for trial, the admissibility of evidence from the FIR and suicide note, and the distinction between a person discharged and a person not charge-sheeted or investigated.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

2. This criminal revision petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 2nd March, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram allowing application under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short 'Cr. P.C']. Naresh Kumar (petitioner) is summoned for trial under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short 'IPC'] alongwith accused Aruna and Lal Chand.

3. The facts in brief are that an FIR No. 146, dated 12th April, 2016, under Section 306/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, at the behest of Vimal Kumar. It was stated that his brother Prem Parkash [hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'] was running a jewellery shop. He lent money to Lokesh, Naresh and Aruna. When the money was asked for, the accused used to give beatings, being harassed, his brother committed suicide leaving the suicide note. In the suicide note, it was mentioned that since lodging of the FIR against Lokesh, he was harassing the deceased, gave beatings and misbehaved with his wife. Further that petitioner (Naresh Kumar) was informer of the police, he was involved in cases and after managing his release, he was also harassing the deceased and gave beatings on 22nd February, 2016. On 2nd April, 2016, brother-in-law of the deceased (saadu) was given beatings. Deceased was being pressurized to enter into a compromise in a cheque bounce case against Aruna, on the terms not acceptable to him. It was further stated that the deceased was given beatings by the accused in the Police Station, in presence of S.H.O. Parveen Kumar. Thereafter, the deceased was sent back after being threatened. As per the note, on being harassed, the suicide was committed.

4. It would be pertinent to note here that FIR No. 401, dated 3rd September, 2015, under Sections 509, 323 and 506 of IPC was registered at Police Station Badshahpur, District Gurgaon against Lokesh at the instance of deceased. It was alleged that when deceased came outside the Police Station after making the statement with regard to his application Lokesh slapped and hit him with his helmet. His sister, who came there, was abused by Lokesh. In the fight, the deceased lost his gold chain weighing 5.5 tolas.

5. Mr. H.S. Lalli, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is erroneous, as the petitioner was declared innocent in enquiry made by the police. The challan was presented only against the co-accused and no protest petition was filed. The grievance is that petitioner is being summoned on the basis of statement made by the complainant (PW-2) without waiting for the cross-examination. The submission is that petitioner is not named in FIR, the summoning was on the basis of false allegations made by PW-2. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and anothers Versus State of Gujarat and others, (2014) 5 SCC 568.

6. Ms. Dimple Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana defending the impugned order, vehemently argues that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, as also in the suicide note. The petitioner is being summoned in FIR No.146, dated 12th April, 2016 and not being named in FIR No. 401, dated 3rd September, 2015 is of no consequence.

7. Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, held that the efforts under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure that real perpetrator does not get away unpunished, further that it is part of fair trial and in order to achieve this very end, this Section was incorporated. The Court has to proceed to find the truth so that innocent does not get punished but in the same time guilty is brought to the books under the law.

8. Petitioner being held innocent in the enquiry held by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is of not much help. There are unchallenged findings recorded in the impugned order to