The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly based on strong and cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IVth, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2012, State Vs. Indrasen & others.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected 43-[k application filed by the revisionist u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as additional accused for trial.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that without considering the evidence on record, the trial court has rejected the revisionist’s application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that on the basis of complaint dated 09.08.2010, N.C.R. No. 120 of 2010 u/s 323, 504 I.P.C. was lodged against accused, Indrasen s/o Ram Yash, Rana Pratap s/o Ram Yash, Praveen alias Mulayam s/o Indrasen and Anil Kumar s/o Rajendra. The revisionist/informant on 16.09.2010 submitted application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. in which he mentioned the name of four other accused, namely, Akhand Yadav, Chandrabhan and Nar Singh, sons of Ram Yash, Vikas son of Indrasen, Arun alias Pintu Yadav son of Chandrabhan but after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against four accused against whom N.C.R. was registered in the police station. The Investigating Officer illegally did not submit charge-sheet against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 whose names were mentioned in the informant’s application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that the informant P.W.1 Umesh Kumar in his evidence dated 16.02.2017 and P.W.2 Ram Swarath in his evidence dated 01.09.2021 has mentioned that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 participated in the commission of the offence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that the trial court after considering the evidence on record has rightly rejected the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as additional accused in the case. The informant P.W.1 Umesh Kumar has not mentioned name of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in his written report on the basis of which aforesaid N.C.R. was lodged against the accused, Indrasen, Rana Pratap, Praveen alias Mulayam and Anil Kumar. It has also been submitted that after a gap of about 1 month after submitting the written report, the informant P.W.1 Umesh Kumar has falsely named the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as accused in the offence. It has also been submitted that after a gap of about 7 years, the revisionist/informant in his evidence as P.W.1 has assigned opposite party nos. 2 to 5 the role in the commission of offence, which is an afterthought and cannot be relied upon. It has also been submitted that P.W.1 Umesh Kumar and P.W.2 Ram Swarath both are accused in the criminal case lodged by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 against the revisionist and his companions. Therefore, as a counterblast and to pressurize the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, the revisionist has falsely named opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as accused in his application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. which he had submitted after a gap of more than 37 days of the occurrence. Since no evidence was available against opposite party nos. 2 to 5, the Investigating Officer did not file charge-sheet against them.

6. The revisionist/informant, Umesh Kumar had not mentioned in his written report dated 09.08.2010 complicity of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in the crime. He has for the first time mentioned their names as accused in his application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. submitted in the Court on 16.09.2010.

7. Thus, after a gap of 37 days from the date of occurrence, the revisionist/informant P.W.1 Umesh Kumar in his statement recorded on 16.09.2017 and P.W.2 Ram Swarath in his statement recorded on 01.09.2021 had implicated opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as being involved in the