JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.03.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in case arising out of FIR No. 80 dated 24.01.2018, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 216 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’), whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be summoned as an additional accused on allowing of an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant Sandeep alleging that accused Sumit was his friend who used to make calls to their other friends by taking cellphone of the complainant. On 09.01.2018, Sumit insisted the complainant to accompany him to Karnal for the purpose of buying some clothes. When they reached in the vicinity of Karnal, Sumit made the complainant to stop at Atal Park on the premise that he had to take money from someone. On reaching the park, he took the phone of the complainant and made a call to the present petitioner, who was already present there. Sumit went towards the petitioner. In the meanwhile, six youths reached there armed with weapons and while proclaiming that they would teach him a lesson for talking with a girl, they opened an attack upon the complainant and caused injuries on his person with knives and by giving kicks and fist blows. On intervention of other persons, who were present in the park, they fled away while extending threats to him. The complainant alleged that he had been admitted in the hospital and the police was informed at that time but no action was taken.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was found to be innocent. She had not been arrested and challaned. Her name was kept in Column No. 2 of the challan report. Subsequently, during the course of trial, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused, which was allowed, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2024. As such, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506, 216, 148, 120-B and 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that the allegations in the FIR, even if believed to be correct on the face of the same, do not make out any case whatsoever for commission of aforementioned offences against her. As per the allegations, she was present at the spot before occurrence and had gone along with co-accused Sumit. However, no specific overt act has been attributed to her. While appearing as a witness, the complainant made material improvements in his version, so as to implicate her. In fact, she is friend of Jyoti Verma, who had lodged an FIR bearing No, 51 dated 24.01.2018, registered under Sections 354-D and 506 of IPC against the complainant, who had been harassing her from quite some time. The complainant had been exerting pressure upon her to ask Jyoti Verma to withdraw that case and on feeling offended due to the reason that she did not do so, he had falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, is liable to be dismissed and the present petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that there is no illegality or i