JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court, Chandigarh. Vide impugned order, application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking summoning of the petitioner as additional accused was allowed. Resultantly, the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sections 376, 363, 366 IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. Facts of the case are that the complainant in the case got FIR No.428, dated 09.10.2017 under Section 363 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. In the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the complainant, i.e., the victim of the case, aged 17 years, had gone missing from her home. The Police, during the investigation of the case, traced and recovered the victim and got her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. recorded in the case. The story as unfolded by the statement of the victim was that on the night of 08.10.2017, main accused Irfan forced the victim to come out of her home asking for some money. When the victim came out of her house to give money to Irfan, he dragged her inside a vehicle, and locked the vehicle. He told the victim that he would drop her back after having some outing. The driver of the vehicle left both of them, i.e., the victim and Irfan, at a Lake. Thereafter, the victim started receiving calls from her parents, and she asked Irfan to drop her back home, but Irfan forcibly took her from the Lake to Hoshiarpur. They stayed at Hoshiarpur Railway Station for the day and went to Delhi. After reaching Delhi and having food, the victim did not know what happened to her, but the next morning she felt like something wrong had happened to her and she felt pain in her abdomen and her head. In the morning, Irfan told her to go back to her house. Then they together came back upto Ludhiana, from where the victim went all alone to Hoshiarpur.

3. Prosecution, during the course of the examination of its witnesses in the case, examined the complainant, being the father of the victim, as PW-1 in the case. During his Examination-in-Chief, he named the present petitioner and one Rashid also as accused in the case. The allegations against Rashid were that he helped the accused Irfan by permitting him to stay in his house along with the victim at Gurgaon. It is alleged that the accused Irfan repeatedly raped the victim and that the accused Rashid also helped Irfan in the crime and extended a threat to the complainant and his family to withdraw the complaint in the case; otherwise, he would eliminate his entire family. However, the allegation against the present petitioner was that accused Irfan, along with the present petitioner forcibly took the victim from her house in his car on the day of the incident.

4. The victim of the case was examined as PW-2 by the prosecution. In her deposition she deposed against the petitioner by alleging that when the accused Irfan forcibly took her from her house in the car, at that time petitioner was driving the said car and dropped them at Lake, Sector 42. It is further alleged that Irfan called the petitioner telephonically, whereupon the petitioner told Irfan to take the victim to Hoshiarpur.

5. On the strength of these statements of complainant and the victim two separate applications were filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.05.2018 seeking summoning of the petitioner as additional accused to face trial in the case. Consequently, vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2018, the trial Court summoned the petitioner as additional accused to face trial in the case.

6. Impugning the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the trial Court, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused is bad in law, as the order was passed by the trial Court without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of