JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 26.04.2013 passed below Exhs.38 and 42 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.19/2012 and further to allow the same.

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani for the applicant, learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Parth S. Tolia for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6.

[3.0] It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is the original complainant of FIR being I-CR No.104/2012 registered against the private respondents herein and one accused namely Imu Muslim with Thorala Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 396, 302 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (for short “Atrocity Act”). After investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against only one accused i.e. Imran @ Imu Jusubbhai Tayani for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC only, whereas private respondents herein were named in column No.2 of the charge- sheet. Further, as the offences alleged were sessions triable, the charge-sheet culminated into Sessions Case No.19/2012.

[3.1] Thereafter, charge came to be framed and trial proceeded and during the course of recording of examination in chief (Exh.39) of the applicant – original complainant, an application Exh.42 under Section 319 of the CrPC came to be filed by the applicant, which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, present revision application is filed seeking quashing of the order passed below Exhs.38 and 42.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. K.S. Chandrani appearing for the applicant – original complainant has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application under Section 319 of the CrPC and power exercised by the learned trial Court does not fall in the purview of section 319 of the CrPC. He has further submitted that at the stage of section 319 CrPC, the learned trial Court has conducted mini trial and assigned contradictory findings and observations made are against the settled principles of law. Further, he has submitted that even at the stage of framing of charge, all accused persons were implicated by the complainant suo motu without there being any application from prosecution side or any other application relying merely on column No.2 without filing of any report under Section 169 of the CrPC, the trial has proceeded against the accused named in column No.1 of the charge-sheet. At the initial stage, at the time of registration of FIR, names of all accused were given and though there was no need of issuance of any notice, notice was issued to the proposed accused – private respondents herein. Further, he has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that the other witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution may or may not implicate other accused and would depose before the Court about the information they had, but it does not mean that proposed accused are required to be exonerated merely because other witnesses have not deposed about the role and involvement of other accused. He has submitted that when the revision application was filed, trial was not concluded and only subsequently trial is concluded and merely because accused namely Imran @ Imu is acquitted is not a ground to not to exercise powers under Section 319(4) of the CrPC and independent or de novo trial is not prohibited. To buttress his arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yadwinder Singh vs. Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 420; Jamilaben Hanif Mane