IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Lekh Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:-. Ms. Kiranjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Devinder Bir Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the complainant *****

KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in case SC/219/2024 tiled as State vs. Sukhdev Sigh @ Sukha Singh vide which the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as 'Additional Accused' has been allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that the FIR No. 81 dated 12.05.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Guruharshai was registered on the statement of complainant alleging that co-accused namely Sukhdev Singh had enticed away her daughter in connivance with Balwinder Singh. After registration of above mentioned false and forged FIR offence under Section 376 IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 were added vide rapat No.34 on 16.05.2024 against the co-accused and 27.11.2024 challan has been presented against the accused namely Sukhdev Singh and other co-accused namely Balwinder Singh has been kept in column No.2 of the challan. After presentation of challan trial has been commenced. Thereafter the prosecution moved an application under section 319Cr.P.C seeking summoning of the present petitioner in the main trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide its impugned order dated 17.12.2024 allowed the application of the prosecution and summoned the present petitioner to face the trial as additional accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has neither any role nor any involvement in the alleged offence. The petitioner was not even named in the FIR as well as challan. The victim was in a consensual relation with the co-accused namely Sukhdev Singh but the present petitioner has been implicated in the present case only due to his relation with him. He further submits that no case is made out against the petitioner and the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 to summon the petitioner is against law and deserves to be set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the perspicuous observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some of its recent judgements. Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, SC

2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623 has laid down that:

"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of p