JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Pankaj Saxena, learned AGAI appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [the Code] has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Baghpat in Application 28B in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2014 (State vs. Jahangir) arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2013, under Section 489B Indian Penal Code [the Penal Code] P.S. Khakera, District Baghpat.

3. The proceedings of the case were initiated pursuant to an FIR dated 22.11.2013 registered as Case Crime No. 419 of 2013, under Section 489B of the Penal Code at P.S. Khakera, District Baghpat. The said FIR was lodged by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khakera, Baghpat. Among the two accused named in the FIR the applicant's name was mentioned as accused No. 2. The incident as described in the FIR is that on 22.11.2013 at about 3:00 p.m. the accused no. 1 submitted certain currency notes at the cash counter of the Bank which upon being checked by the cashier were found to be counterfeit and upon an inquiry from the said accused no. 1 he stated in writing that the currency notes had been handed over to him by the accused no. 2, applicant herein.

4. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet dated 10.01.2014 was submitted against the accused no. 1, whereupon cognizance was taken on 16.01.2014. During the course of trial, the first informant (Bank Manger) examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the FIR version by stating that upon the currency notes having been found to be counterfeit, the accused no. 1 was questioned and he stated that the said counterfeit currency notes had been handed over to him by the accused no. 2.

5. The cashier of the Bank, who appeared as PW-2, during the course of trial also corroborated the FIR version by stating that upon the currency notes having been found to be counterfeit the matter was inquired from the accused no. 1 who clearly stated that the currency notes had been handed over to him by the accused no. 2.

6. An application dated 31.08.2017 was moved by the prosecution before the trial court stating that despite the two prosecution witnesses having taken the name of the applicant herein in their examination in chief and also the name of the said accused having specifically been mentioned in the FIR, the police report did not mention his name and accordingly on the basis of evidence available on record it was necessary that the said accused be also tried together with the other accused. The aforesaid application came to be allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge First, Baghpat by order dated 27.02.2018, wherein upon noticing the FIR version and also the statements of the two prosecution witnesses and the necessary legal provisions under Section 319 of the Code the application has been allowed and the applicant herein has been summoned for trial.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to assail the aforesaid order passed by the trial judge summoning the applicant in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code by referring to the statements recorded during the course of investigation to contend that since the Investigating Officer did not find sufficient material against the applicant and no charge-sheet was submitted against him, there was no further material on the basis of which the trial court could have summoned the applicant in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code. He placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 to support his submission.

8. Learned A.G.A.I. has controverted the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant by drawing attention to the fact that the applicant herein was named in the FIR and looking to the facts as narrated in the FIR, the applicant would be the prime accused. I