JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 07.04.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution for summoning the private respondents No.2 to 4, namely Baldev Singh son of Mani Ram, Vinod Kumar and Naresh Kumar sons of Om Parkash (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), to face the trial, has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand reads thus:

(i). FIR No.175 dated 17.07.2018 was registered at Police Station Ellenabad, District Sirsa, under Sections 323, 325, 326, 341, 367, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the statement of the petitioner/complainant/injured namely Vijay Singh. In the said FIR, apart from the accused persons namely Surender Kumar, Rajender Kumar and Om Parkash, the names of the private respondents (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), were also find mentioned.

(ii). Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found respondent Nos.2 to 4 (herein) innocent and placed their names in column No.2 of the final report (challan) while submitting the same against the other three aforesaid accused.

(iii). During the course of trial, the petitioner-complainant appeared as PW-1 on 20.02.2021 and reiterated the allegations against the private respondents, assigning them specific roles in the alleged assault. On the basis of this testimony, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of respondents No.2 to 4 as additional accused.

(iv). Vide impugned order dated 07.04.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved against the said order, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the complainant/injured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. Learned counsel has further iterated that the statement of the complainant/injured witness (petitioner herein), who stepped into the witness box as PW-1, specifically attributes distinct injuries to each of the proposed accused (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), which sufficiently establishes their complicity in the commission of the offence. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the dicta of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, to contend that the degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is equivalent to that required at the stage of framing of charge and the testimony of an injured eye-witness should ordinarily be treated as trustworthy unless contradicted by strong evidence. On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed for grant of the petition in hand.

4. Learned State counsel, while raising submission in tandem with the averments made in the petition, has submitted that during the course of evidence, the complainant, while deposing as PW-1, has categorically attributed causing of injuries by the private respondents by attributing specific and distinct injuries roles to each of them and there exists sufficient evidence to implead them as additional accused. This fact also stands duly corroborated in his complaint dated 09.07.2018 recorded by the Police.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have submitted that the Court below has passed a well reasoned order after due appreciation of the material on record and there was no fresh evidence warranting the summoning of the proposed accused (i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein). Learned counsel has further contended that the mere reiteration of allegations already investigated and found unsubstantiated cannot form the basis of invoking the extraordinary power