Stay of composite summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. suspends its operation against all accused; trial court cannot enforce it or deny release during stay, rendering detention illegal until quashing finalizes proceedings as non-est.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

The present applications have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, respectively, in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.01 of 2022, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C. The applicants have further prayed that their applications dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 seeking release be allowed, on the ground that the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2018, and consequently, a direction be issued to the learned trial court to release the applicants forthwith.

2. In both the C-482 application and C-528 application, the dispute, facts, and questions of law involved are the same. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of C-482 No. 190 of 2018 are being taken into consideration.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on 17.10.2015 at about 11:30 A.M., an altercation took place, whereafter Deepak, his father Prem and his associate Manga @ Pankaj reached the spot. It was alleged that Prem and Manga @ Pankaj caught hold of the complainant’s brother, while Deepak assaulted him with a knife, causing serious injuries, and during the course of being taken to the hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

4. It is further submitted that upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against accused Deepak under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C., whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned trial court. Subsequently, on 17.10.2016, respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the present applicant and other named persons to face trial. Initially, the learned trial court observed that the cross-examination of prosecution witness no.1 was yet to be completed and deferred consideration of the application. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.04.2017, the learned trial court summoned the present applicant along with co-accused Manga @ Pankaj, Prem and Smt. Rajesh under /34, 323/34 and 504 I.P.C.

5. Aggrieved thereby, co-accused Manga @ Pankaj preferred Criminal Revision No.266 of 2017 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 25.01.2018, stayed the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 26.04.2017, observing inter alia that only two out of twenty-one prosecution witnesses had been examined and it would not be appropriate at that stage to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2019, this Court allowed the said criminal revision and set aside the summoning order dated 26.04.2017.

6. Learned counsel submits that in view of the stay granted by this Court on 25.01.2018, the applicant moved an application before the learned trial court seeking his release from custody. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 29.01.2018 on the ground that since the revision had been filed only by Manga @ Pankaj, the benefit of the stay order would enure only to him and not to the present applicant. It is contended that the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 was a composite and indivisible order, and once its operation had been stayed, the same could not have been enfor