IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.02.2025 MXXXXX ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

CRM-121 of 2025

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the revision petition.

2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 20 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRR-6 of 2025

1. Instant revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Fazilka, whereby application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 to face trial along with respondent No.4 in case arising from FIR No.70 dated 04.05.2022 registered under Sections

366, 376, 344, 506 IPC at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of statement of the petitioner stating that respondent No.4-Gautam Kumar and respondents No.2 and 3 confined the petitioner in their illegal custody and committed rape upon her, FIR No.70 dated 04.05.2022 under Sections 366, 376, 344, 506 IPC was registered against respondents No.2 to 4 at Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka. However, during investigation, investigating agency presented challan only against respondent No.4 and respondents No.2 and 3 were declared innocent. Therefore, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 to face trial along with respondent No.4 in the aforesaid case. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Fazilka, vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024. Discontented with the said order, petitioner has filed present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner/complainant specifically named accused/respondents No.2 and 3 in the FIR but the police failed to challan all the persons. He further contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law in dismissing the application despite prima facie involvement of all the proposed accused in commission of the crime.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The extent of the power of the Court to summon persons other than the accused to stand trial in a pending case has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Singh and others vs. Ram Niwas and and another, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 501. In the said case, various authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to extent of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The relevant part from the above said judgment is extracted below:

“12. Indisputably, the court must satisfy itself about the existence of an extraordinary situation enabling it to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction. It is true that the court is not denuded of its power to exercise the said jurisdiction only because a person named as an accused in the FIR was not charge-sheeted as a result whereof no cognizance has been taken against him. What is necessary for the said purpose is that the person concerned was not being tried as an accused before the Court at that stage.

13. This Court in the case of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(2) RCR(Criminal) 200 : 2008(2) RAJ 323 : [2008(3) SCALE 338], has held that a glance of the provision would suggest that during the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. This Court has laid emphasis on the words, 'it appears from the evidence', 'any person', and 'has committed