Criminal Procedure requires strong evidence for summoning additional accused; mere witness statements may not suffice, particularly in light of delays in FIR.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Byas Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Criminal Case No.1697 of 2011 (State vs. Mithai Lal) arising out of Case Crime No.48 of 2011 by which they have been summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli.

Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.02.2011 against revisionists and six others with regard to the incident dated 12.11.2010 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, 395, 452, 427, 341, 342 I.P.C. through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . dated 08.12.2010 and according to the FIR, revisionists and six others made assault and due to the assault made by them, wife of the opposite party no.2 and his two sons sustained injuries.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and during investigation involvement of the revisionists were found false and charge- sheet has not been filed against them but during trial, on the basis of the statements of P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, revisionists have been summoned by the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C . vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023. Hence, the instant revision.

Argument advanced on behalf of the revisionists:-

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the trial court is illegal as while summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C . trial court did not record any finding that more than prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists, which was necessary to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C .

6. He further submits that even it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after two months through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was moved after about one month. He next submits, even P.W.-1 (opposite party no.2), P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 in their statements recorded before the trial court stated that incident occurred on 12.11.2010 but while passing the impugned order, court concerned did not consider this fact and in routine manner summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C .

7. He next submits that however an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C . on the basis of the evidence laid before the trial court but before summoning him, it is the duty of the trial court to consider the other relevant factors including the material available on record collected by the I.O. during investigation.

8. He next submits that however power to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C . is discretionary power but the same cannot be exercised in routine manner and this power should be exercised sparingly only in appropriate cases, where there is strong evidence to summon such accused .

9. He further submits that in the present matter even from the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial court, it reflects, they very casually disclosed the name of the revisionists and their testimonies were not of such quality on the basis of which revisionists should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C .

10. He next submits that therefore, impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the court concerned is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

Argument advanced on behalf of the Stat