The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statement of the petitioner/complainant, when providing sufficient evidence, should be considered for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - By way of present petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby, application filed at the instance of petitioner/complainant, invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning of Sandeep, Sudhir and Rajan as additional accused, has been dismissed.

2. In the present case FIR No.272 dated 03.10.2021 was registered at Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar, at the instance of petitioner/complainant against Seema Devi, Sandeep, Sudhir and Rajan. Upon investigation, challan against Seema Devi was filed before the Illaqa Magistrate on 24.11.2021 whareas other three accused i.e. Sandeep, Sudhir and Rajan were placed in column No.2 The petitioner/complainant appeared as PW-1 before the trial Court on 15.03.2022. Based upon his deposition, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, seeking summoning of Sandeep, Sudhir and Rajan i.e.

3. private respondents as additional accused. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, which has been impugned by way of present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below while passing the impugned order failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as the statement made by petitioner/complainant Randhir Singh was not appreciated by the Court below in its proper perspective. Referring to the aforesaid statement of PW-1 as Annexure P-3 (at page No.31), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that each and every minute detail of the incident showing involvement of the private respondents in the alleged incident has been disclosed therein which somehow missed the consideration of the learned Court below and thus, prays for setting aside the impugned order. He relies upon the judgments passed in the cases of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623, Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 2000, Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 388 and Brijender Singh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 264.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel representing respondents No.2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition while submitting that the statement of PW-1 (petitioner/complainant) was merely reiteration of the statement made by him before the police at the time of registration of FIR as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., during the investigation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that in the absence of any material to connect the private respondents with the alleged offence, the trial Court rightly declined the prayer made by the petitioner/complainant for summoning them as additional accused.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

8. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, the statement of PW-1 i.e. Randhir Singh/petitioner/complainant is relevant and thus a portion thereof is reproduced as under:-

'...........At about4:30/5:00 p.m. on 02.10.2021, Sandeep, Sudhir and Rajan came to my house and called my son Shubham outside the house. They threatened my son Shubham that he would be killed. After threatening my son, they left that place. On my asking as to why those persons had come, my son Shubham did not reveal anything to me, but he was terrified. I went inside our house. At about 6:00 p.m. on 02.10.2021, my son Subham started in the street. I again enquired from my son Shubham and he disclosed to me that accused Seema was harassing him and was forcing him to make physical relations with her. He further disclosed to me that he had tried to make the accused understand on the pretext that she was his aunty in relation, but she was adamant. He further disclosed to me that on that day also, he was called by the accus