Judgment

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 17.10.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, in case SC/34 of 2018 titled as ‘State Vs. Laxmi Narain etc.’ arising out of FIR No.287 dated 22.09.2017 under Sections 148 , 149, 302, 323, 452 and 506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram, vide which an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by the prosecution to summon the petitioners to face trial as additional accused was allowed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued with vehemence that the impugned order is patently illegal and thus deserves to be set aside as the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners had been declared innocent by the police after a detailed investigation and thus rightly not challaned. It has been further submitted that the Trial Court also failed to take into account that respondent No.2 i.e. complainant Krishan Kumar, while stepping into the witness box as PW-4 had made material improvements qua the alleged role played by the petitioners inasmuch as in his deposition in the Court he stated that the petitioners had held the deceased by his hands and legs when the co-accused were inflicting injuries on his person, however, the FIR lodged by the complainant was totally silent qua the same.

3. Learned counsel has still further submitted that on the face of it, it is a case of false implication as it was a matter of record that relations between the parties were not cordial and there was a history of civil dispute between them. It has also been asserted by the learned counsel that both the doctors i.e. PW-1 Deepak Mathur and PW-3 Nitika Grover, in their testimony before the Trial Court deposed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were minor in nature and that the deceased was suffering from a chronic heart disease, hence, the possibility of the deceased dying due to natural causes could not be ruled out. Thus, learned counsel has argued that there was hardly any cogent evidence to summon the petitioners under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to face trial as additional accused.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. It has been urged that in the FIR, which was lodged without any delay, it had been specifically alleged by the complainant that all the accused, including the petitioners after trespassing into his house, on the fateful day had launched an unprovoked attack on the complainant party. Not only had the petitioners held the deceased by his arms and legs when he was being inflicted injuries by the co-accused but it had also been alleged in the FIR that the complainant as well as 03 others from his family were also inflicted injuries by the petitioners, which in turn found support from the medical evidence on record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab , (Constitution Bench) 2014(3) SCC 92 while dealing with the object and purpose behind Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has held as under:-

“98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person m