The central legal point established is the requirement of a strong satisfaction based on evidence for summoning accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 489 of 2016 (State Vs. Asgar Ali @ Azgar) allowing the application of complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the accused/present applicants to face trial under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2015, Police Station- Bhamora, District- Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that despite earlier order of this Court by which, similar summoning of the present applicants had been set aside, the learned Court below has committed the same error and has again passed an erroneous order inasmuch as instead of recording a strong satisfaction solely on the basis of evidence that may have been led before it, it has now passed the order on the basis of an appraisal of the case diary material as also the evidence received before it.

4. Second, it has been submitted that the learned Court below has completely erred in comparing the facts of the present case with those in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (7) SCC 706 while giving effect to the earlier order passed by this Court.

5. Third, it has been submitted that the contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 (the eye-witness informant) and PW-2 (the injured eye-witness) was not to be lightly glossed over as has been done by the learned Court below inasmuch as the eyewitness informant had specifically stated that other than Ashraf no other person had used the fire arm while the injured witness accused all the applicants as the persons who had used the fire arm in the occurrence which is clearly false in face of a single fire arm injury mentioned in the injury report.

6. It is therefore submitted that no strong satisfaction could have arisen in the facts of the present case to summon the present applicants.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the learned Court below had examined each and every aspect of the matter and thereafter reached a strong satisfaction that the present applicants be summoned at this stage as accused persons.

8. Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA on the other submits that the impugned order may not be happily worded. However, if this Court were to ignore that aspect in the interest of justice, then, shorn of technicalities, the impugned order in its entirety does reveal that the learned trial court has considered in part evidence that was led before it, even though in certain parts the case diary material has also been noted.

9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, in the first place, it has to be placed on record that it is never the facts of a case that are laid down by way of a principle of law, either by the Supreme Court or this Court to be applied by the subordinate courts. It is the principle of law that is laid down that constitutes the ratio decidendi.

10. The judgment in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (7) SCC 706 and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in AIR (2014) 3 SCC 1400 only lay down the principle of law to be applied while summoning other persons as accused persons to be tried along with the charge sheeted accused. In that regard, amongst others, it has been held by the Supreme Court that:

(i) the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly;

(ii) any person (other than the person already facing trial), may be summoned only if a strong satisfaction arises with the learned trial court that such other person is liable to be tried along with persons already facing trial;

(iii) the strong satisfaction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. may arise solely/only on