Kuldeep Sood vs State of Punjab

Daya Chaudhary, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 35287 of 2013

Allowed as prayed for.

Crl. Rev. No. 2147 of 2013

The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which, the revision petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and the order of the trial Court has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has been directed to re-consider the application after recording the statements of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 107 dated 22.10.2007 under Sections 307 /326 /323 /148 /149 IPC was registered at Police Station Banur District Patiala against six persons. After conducting the investigation, the challan was presented only against Gurdeep Ram and Brij Lal and not against Om Parkash, Pritam Chhabra, Shanti Parkash and Raju. However, P.O. proceedings were initiated against Brij Lal and the other accused were put in column No. 2. The charge against Gurdeep Ram was framed after recording the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura on 22.08.2012. Thereafter, the revision petition was filed by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, Patiala which was allowed on 25.04.2013 and the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura was set aside and a direction was also issued to the trial Court to reconsider the application after recording the statements of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar and the parties through their counsel were directed to appear before the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed after going through the evidence on record as specific role was attributed to each and every accused as they were armed with weapons. The revision petition filed by the additional accused was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to re-consider the application after recording the statement of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar, which is contrary to the ratio of law settled by various Courts. Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be interfered with only on the ground that the statements of the witnesses have not been recorded. Learned counsel also submits that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, then it is not for the revisional Court to substitute its own discretion to examine the statement of other witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in case Bhushan Kumar and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another,

Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the order passed by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court.

Admittedly, Om Parkash, Pritam Chhabra, Shanti Parkash and Anil Kumar were found innocent during investigation and the challan was presented against Gurdeep Ram and accused Brij Lal was declared proclaimed offender. Statement of PW-1 Kuldeep Sood was recorded and he was also cross examined. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the additional accused which was allowed vide Order dated 22.08.2012 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura. As per statement of PW-1 Kuldeep Sood, the persons sought to be summoned also inflicted injuries with the help of sticks. As per MLR, injured PW-1 has suffered three injuries which were the result of sharp edged weapon, whereas, said persons were shown to be armed with blunt weapon i.e. sticks. No injury was caused with blunt weapon as per MLR. A revision petition was also filed and the Revisional Court while allowing the petition has held that it is to be seen after examination of doctor as to how many injuries have been suffered by the complainant. MLR of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar were not available on file and there was no evidence whether they have received injuries at the hands of accused. The case was remanded back by the revisional Court because of the reason that it will be considered after recording the statement of doctor and remaining injured. The trial Court has been directed to decide the application after recording the statements of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar.

As far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the revisional Court cannot substitute its own opinion while remanding the case, has no substance as summoning of accused person u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is a very serious issue and the same is to be allowed with care and caution. While summoning, there should be sufficient material/evidence to connect the person sought to be summoned with the alleged offence. The trial Court should also record the reasons that there are chances of conviction. The powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a casual manner.

As per provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the powers to summon an additional accused has been granted to the trial Court, in case it comes to the conclusion that some other persons are there, who are also involved in the commission of crime but the powers are to be exercised with care and caution as has been held in various judgments. This power is to be exercised only when the Court finds that some evidence is there on the record, which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. The trial court cannot summon a person only on the basis of some suspicion but it should be evident and reflected from the evidence already collected that there are some compelling reasons for summoning a person to face trial. It has also been held in various judgments that summoning order cannot be passed merely on the statement of witnesses unless some compelling reasons are there which leads to conviction. The satisfaction of the trial Court along with reasoning is to be recorded while passing summoning order. This view has been held in various judgments by this court as well as Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Some of the judgments are Sarabjit Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, , Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand, , Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 (2) RCR (Cri) 200, Kishori vs. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Cri) 555, Dayanand Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012 (3) RCR (Cri) 105, Hukam Chand and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, Smt. Rani vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (1) RCR (Cri) 985 and Angrej Singh vs. State of Punjab, (CRR No. 3112 of 2011) decided on 26.04.2012. In view of the facts as mentioned above, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. Moreover, the trial Court has been directed to reconsider the application after recording the statements of injured witnesses. The petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.