Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Rahul - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRR- No. 4885 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Condonation of Delay - Criminal Law - Section 367, 120-B IPC, Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the mandatory requirement for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the power should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against the person. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused in a case registered under Sections 367 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner contended that a thorough investigation was done by the investigating agency and the petitioner had been found innocent. The petitioner raised the plea of alibi, which was accepted. The petitioner argued that the order summoning the petitioner was a non-speaking order as there was no satisfaction recorded by the Court as to the culpability of the petitioner to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had ignored the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and had based the reason for summoning the petitioner as an accused entirely on not accepting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized the mandatory requirement for summoning a person as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused in the case and the satisfaction recorded by the Court as to the culpability of the petitioner to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., stating that it should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against the person. The court highlighted that the trial court had not discussed or recorded its satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction, and therefore set aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral). - CRM No.41749 of 2017
Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 142 days in filing the instant revision petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 142 days in filing the revision petition stands condoned.
CRR No.4885 of 2017
1. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar by which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in FIR No.139 dated 22.04.2016 registered under Sections 367 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Farakpur on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
2. In brief, the facts are that the FIR was registered on statement of one Paras Kamboj @ Robin son of Raj Kumar, caste Kamboj under Section 367 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC on the allegation that he and his relative Rahul had a meal together and thereafter, they went for a walk, when a white colour Swift Car, number of which, could be HR-05AD/1020 or 1050 came and stopped near them. One boy came out of the car and forcibly made the complainant sit inside the car. After that, two more persons came and sat in the car with him. Two more boys namely Rahul son of Kanwar Pal, caste Kamboj, resident of Rindal and Shanky s/o Mahender, caste Kamboj, resident of Nabipur were present but they did not sit in the car. His relative ran away from the spot and the complainant was taken in the car. The complainant shouted but the boys in the car strangulated him and were talking to Ankush and other boys sitting in the car. A gun was pointed at him and one boy said that Mahender has only given Rs. 5 lakhs to us and do not kill him for Rs. 5 lakhs. He was taken out of the car and given severe beatings with iron and wooden rods lying there and thereafter, he was left behind. He walked for a distance and found a person, who gave him water and informed his family members, who took him to the hospital. The reason for the rivalry is that Mahender Singh had a fight with father of the complainant and his uncle Om Parkash.
3. The matter was investigated and challan presented qua Ankush, Jasbir, Rohit, Rahul son of Roshan Lal, Vijay son of Ram Pal, Jasbir Rana son of Jassi, Mahender Singh son of Prabhu Ram and Rohit @ Kaka son of Krishan Singh. The statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he reiterated contents of the FIR and thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the petitioner herein as an additional accused. The trial court by its order dated 21.04.2017 allowed the application summoning the petitioner as an accused to face trial. Aggrieved against the same, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has assailed the said order by contending that a thorough investigation was done by the investigating agency and the petitioner herein had been found innocent. The petitioner raised the plea of alibi, which was accepted. It is argued that the order summoning the petitioner herein is, in fact, a non-speaking order as there is no satisfaction recorded by the Court as to the culpability of the petitioner to summon him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623 as well as the subsequent judgment rendered in Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 219 and the judgment rendered by this Court in Hatjap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 505 to argue that a person ought to be summoned as an additional accused by invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against such person. Power to summon ought not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as the complainant would argue that there were specific allegations
The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against the person.
The discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only when credible material substantiates a prima facie case against additional accused.
The court reiterated that invoking Section 319 requires compelling evidence; mere identification or presence at a crime scene is insufficient for summoning additional accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused to face trial with other accused is higher than the criteria required by the poli....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
