JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.M. Antani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.

2.1. The present Revision Application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Code”) assails the correctness and validity of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2016 below Exhibit-386 wherein the application preferred by the revisionist applicant – Complainant to arraign the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent” ) as one accused in the Sessions Case No. 104 of 2016 came to be rejected.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present revision application is that the present revisionist – applicant is the original complainant who lodged First Information Report being C.R. No. I-66 of 2010 with Rajkot ‘B’ Division Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 365, 342, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) which inter alia alleged that one Samir Ishwarbhai Gandhi who was working as Manager with with Rajmoti Industries came over to the residence of the sister of the complainant and forcibly took his brother-in-law – Dinesh Madhukant Daxini from their residence. This incident took place in presence of his sister and another witness on 28.02.2016.

3.1. It was further alleged by the revisionist – applicant that subsequent to abduction of his brother-in-law, he was brought to the premises of Rajmoti Industries, Rajkot at around 04:00 pm on 28.02.2016 and was kept in the room in the building owned by Rajmoti Industries. It was further alleged that on instructions of the co-accused Samir Madhukant Shah, accused - Samir Gandhi gave fatal injuries to the victim - Dinesh Madhukant Daxini, which resulted into his death. In view of the information given by the present revisionist – applicant, First Information Report being C.R. No. I-66 of 2010 came to be registered with the Rajkot ‘B’ Division Police Station, Rajkot. Subsequent to the filing of First Information Report, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and charge sheet came to be filed. Subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet, criminal case came to be numbered as Criminal Case no. 104 of 2016.

3.2. During the course of trial, one of the accused Samir Gandhi preferred an application to turn approver and the same was granted by the Sessions court. Once the application of the accused Samir Gandhi was granted, he gave his statement as an approver and supported the case of the prosecution vide his deposition below Exhibit-290. It is the case of the revisionist – applicant that during the course of deposition, Samir Gandhi has pointed out the very particular role of the respondent being the one who instructed about the course of action that led to death of the deceased Dinesh Daxini. It is alleged that Shyam Madhukant Shah i.e. the present revisionist along with his brother accused Samir Madhukant Shah had instructed Samir Gandhi i.e. approver to assault the victim on account of alleged dues to the company. Despite the role demonstrated by Samir Gandhi, according to the revisionist applicant, the police authorities had chosen not to arraign the respondent as an accused in the case. It was in this context the present revisionist application has filed application under Section 319 of the Code below Exhibit-386 in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2016 to arraign the respondent as accused. The Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 01.03.2024 was pleased to reject the application preferred by the revisionist – applicant which has resulted into filing of the present revision application.

3.3. Subsequent to the fil