IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Veeraj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala as well as the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ambala, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of respondents No. 2 to 8 was ordered to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR No. 114 dated 22.10.2016 under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC at Police Station Panjokhara, District Ambala was got registered by the present petitioner against respondents No. 2 to 8 and five other co-accused. Even, there was sufficient evidence with regard to the involvement of respondents No. 2 to 8, however, the police colluded with the accused and without any reasonable justification, the police had wrongly exonerated the respondents No. 2 to 8. Moreover, the petitioner appeared as PW2 and in his statement he had explained the role of respondents No. 2 to 8 and it was established that they had the motive to commit crime. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-3). Even, the revision petition was dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala vide the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts had overlooked the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C. and failed to appreciate that there was sufficient evidence to summon the private respondents.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rightly declined by the trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court. In fact, the trial Court is conferred with discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon any accused, who appears to be involved in the offence. However, in the present case, the Courts had clearly observed that the evidence about the involvement of respondents No. 2 to 8 was completely missing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apart from that, the parties were inimical towards each other and there were chances of false implication of respondents No. 2 to 8. Moreover, the statement made by the present petitioner had already been examined by the IO in the present case and no incriminating evidence was found against respondents No. 2 to 8. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed by this Court.

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

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2007(4)

RCR (Criminal) 497:2008 AIR(Supreme Court) 95 as follows:-

“13. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the Code as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the cas