The court emphasized the necessity to summon a person and the strict application of the provision in cases where the person is not found to be instrumental in the commission of an offence at the stage of investigation. It also highlighted the discretion and extraordinary nature of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court.

JUDGMENT :

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

1. The present applicants in the C482 Applications have put a challenge to the order of 14.01.2016, which was passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.6456 of 2011, State vs. Manmohan Das and Others, whereby, the learned Trial Court had allowed the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and had summoned the applicants for being cross examined for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. The judgment of allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was put to challenge in a Criminal Revision No.36 of 2016, the same too has been dismissed by the judgment of 16.08.2019, which is under challenge in C482 No.2831 of 2019.

2. In connected to C482 No.403 of 2020, the challenge which has been given is yet again, is to the order of 14.01.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.6456 of 2011, State vs. Manmohan Das and Others, whereby, the Court has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the applicant has been thereby summoned and the said order of the learned Trial Court has been affirmed in Criminal Revision No.36 of 2016.

3. The brief facts in both the cases which are common in nature are being dealt with hereunder:-

“The fact which is undisputed, is that respondent no.2 was the complainant to the FIR, which was registered as an FIR No.161 of 2011, for the alleged involvement of the named accused person therein for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 347, 504, 506, 454 & 380 of IPC, which was registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar.”

4. Mahant Ramdas and Ramdharacharya, who are the respective applicants in C482 No.403 of 2020, were the named accused person in the FIR. But, however, when the investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was submitted being Charge Sheet No.145 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011, it was submitted as against Mr. Manmohan Das Shishya Bharat Das who only was found to be the accused person. It is based on the said charge sheet, that the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.6456 of 2011, State vs. Manmohan Das and others was put to motion. It was during the course of trial, that an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented by the respondent herein on 21.09.2015, wherein, it was contended, that the present applicants in C482 application, who were the earlier named accused person in the FIR whose name figured in the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, they are required to be summoned, as they would be in a better position to provide an appropriate evidence to the court with regard to the alleged commission of offence which was complained of in the FIR.

5. The application thus preferred under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by respondent no.2, was considered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was allowed by the impugned order, which is of a common date i.e. 14.01.2016. Later on, on challenge being given to it in Criminal Revision No.36 of 2019, the revision was dismissed, thereby affirming the order of the Trial Court dated 14.01.2016.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument from the view point, that if the provisions contained under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are taken into consideration, it has to be strictly followed for the purposes of summoning a person for the purposes for being tried, which would be obviously according to the wisdom based upon an appreciation of evidence by the Court seems to be guilty of commission of offence.

7. The language used under sub section (1), which would be of much relevance is extracted hereunder:-

“It uses the word “that any person not being an accused”, has committed an offence for which such person could be tried.”

8. The restrictions of summoning a person and the procedure, which is required to be allowed while passing an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be strictly followed in those cases, where the person is not found t