The court can summon an accused as an additional accused to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on prima-facie evidence, even if the investigating agency had previously exonerated the accused.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Simh Sethi, J. - The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial by allowing the application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') filed by the prosecution in FIR No. 285 dated 07.08.2016, under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, certain facts need to be enumerated here.

2. Complainant, Deepak son of Sita Ram made a complaint to the police, on the basis of which, FIR No. 285 dated 07.08.2016 was registered. As per the allegations in the FIR, Sita Ram, father of complainant, committed suicide on 07.08.2016 and the reasons stated for the said act committed by the deceased was that one Rakesh, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, his elder brother Kawaljeet and the petitioner, Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Pehalwan were not returning the amount, which they took from the said Sita Ram citing financial difficulty having suffered losses in their business and made the deceased Sita Ram sell his land to arrange the amount so as to bail them out from the financial difficulty, despite the fact that the assurance was given by them to the deceased that the amount so given, will be returned along with interest. FIR records that a sum of Rs. 44 lacs was handed over by the deceased to Rakesh in the presence of the petitioner and Kawaljeet but thereafter, the said persons did not return the amount taken from deceased Sita Ram on one pretext or the other. Further allegation in the FIR is that even a Panchayat meeting was called on the asking of the deceased Sita Ram to solve the said issue but Rakesh, Kawaljeet and the petitioner, Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Pehalwan not only refused to attend the said meeting but also threatened the deceased Sita Ram by declaring that they are not going to return the amount whatever may come.

3. As per the FIR, Sita Ram committed suicide being perturbed due to non-return of the amount by the above said persons on 07.08.2016 and a suicide note was also recovered, wherein, all three persons i.e. Rakesh, Kawaljeet as well as petitioner, Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Pehalwan were named as the cause, which led Sita Ram to take his life. During the investigation, the suicide note recovered was got forensically examined, wherein, the signatures of the deceased matched with that on the suicide note. As per the FSL report, common poison was not detected as the cause of death.

4. After the investigation, Rakesh as well as Kawaljeet i.e. both the brothers were found prima-facie guilty of the offence in the challan submitted by investigating agency and the petitioner, Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Pehalwan was found innocent. It may be noticed here that a factual aspect has already come on record that petitioner, Naresh Kumar @ Naresh Pehalwan, who is a police official, was sought to be proceeded against when investigation of the FIR was with the Crime Branch but after the said investigation was transferred back to the District Police, no challan was submitted against him holding him to be innocent.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined complainant, Deepak, who reiterated the allegations against accused Rakesh and Kawaljeet as well as against the petitioner to the effect that they abetted the suicide committed by his father, Sita Ram as well as the allegation that petitioner along with other two accused had taken Rs. 44 lakhs from the deceased, which was not being returned by them, which fact led the deceased to take his own life. Thereafter, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial along with Rakesh and Kawaljeet.

6. As per the prosecution, there was enough evidence against the petitioner so as to summon him to be tried for the offence along wit