Dimple Alias Dimple Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

IN T Dimple @ D State of Har CORAM:

Present:-

Nidhi Gupta

dated 02.07. whereby the 319 Cr.P.C. additional ac (Annexure P IPC and Sec Karnal, has b

¶2behalf of re which is take

¶3in the FIR (A including res

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGAR

Dimple Kumar

Vs. ryana & Others

HON'BLE MS. JUSTIC Mr. Munish Mittal, Advoc Mr. Surinder Kumar Daga Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, A respondents No.3 to 5.

***** a, J.

Challenge in the present R .2024 passed by learned Addi application filed by the petitio for summoning of private res ccused to face trial in case F P1) registered under Sections 14 ctions 25 & 54 of the Arms Ac been dismissed.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, spondents No.3 to 5 and files en on record.

Learned counsel for the p Annexure P-1), the petitioner had spondents No.2 to 7 herein. The p JAB & HARYANA AT RH CRR-1328-2024(O&M) Date of order: 19.07.2024

…..Petitioner(s)

…..Respondent(s) CE NIDHI GUPTA cate for the petitioner. ar, DAG Haryana. Advocate for Revision Petition is to the order itional Sessions Judge, Karnal, oner/complainant under Section spondents No.2 to 7 herein, as FIR No.376 dated 12.06.2018 48, 149, 323, 307, 447 and 506 ct at Police Station Gharaunda, Advocate puts in appearance on Memorandum of Appearance, petitioner inter alia submits that d specifically named 10 persons petitioner had also made serious

r , n s , n , t s s

and specific presented on application d remaining ac considering m It is conten respondents (Annexure P specifically n face of such dismissing th

¶4to 5 veheme actual fact, t trial in a cros incident at ha the Deputy S

02.08.2018, 'accused' nam recorded. Up father of the brother who other miscrea follows:-

allegations against each of the nly against 5 persons. As su dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P ccused to face trial. However, material facts available on record nded that the petitioner has No.2 to 7 herein. Even in h P4) before the learned trial C named respondents No.2 to 7. It h overwhelming evidence, learn he application of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearin ntly controverts the above said the petitioner side is the aggres ss-case filed by respondents No. and dated 11.06.2018, inquiry w Superintendent of Police, Karn it has been noted that on an ap mely Randhir, a complaint No.1 pon investigation, vide report dat e present petitioner had called had come to the fields of respon ants armed with sticks and other accused. However, challan was uch, the petitioner moved an P2) seeking summoning of the the learned trial Court without d dismissed the said application. s levelled allegations against is testimony dated 24.03.2022 Court, the petitioner PW4 has is stated that accordingly, in the ned trial Court was in error in ng on behalf of respondents No.3 assertions, and submits that in ssor, and are accordingly facing 2 to 7. It is submitted that in the was conducted into the matter by al. As per inquiry report dated pplication of one of the present 804 Peshi dated 12.07.2018 was ted 02.08.2018, it was found that d the petitioner along with his ndents No.2 to 7 along with 5-6 r weapons. It is also reported as

s n e t . t s e n

n g e y d t s t s s

¶5accused bein Deepak have under Sectio

06.01.2020. Sessions Jud (SC/251/2019 pending in th Police, City K learned Addi are taken on

6.

"…Through the in parties Ran Singh e side and they were caused injuries to report of the comp yet. From my inve 148, 149, 323, 341, been found to be c Therefore, instruct SHO, Police Statio under the above-m mentioned case an of the complainan and settle the case"

It is submitted that pursu ng the present petitioner, his fat e been charged by learned Add ons 323, 325, 341, 447, 506 a In the said order, it has also be dge, Karnal that "…A cross-cas 9), under sections 148, 149, 3 his court for 22.01.2020…". Rep Karnal dated 02.08.2018 and or itional Sessions Judge, Karnal, a record as Annexures P3 and P4 r

No other argument is mad nvestigation of the complaint, etc. were found to be aggressive also found to have deliberately o the complainant. The X-ray plainant has not been received estigation, crimes under section , 506, 447, 511 of IPC have also ommitted by Ran Singh's party. tions should be given to the on Gharaunda to register a case mentioned Sections in the above-nd after taking the X-ray report t, take action as per the rules ".(Emphasis added) uant to the said report, the three ther Ran Singh and his brother ditional Sessions Judge, Karnal and 511 IPC vide order dated een noted by learned Additional se State Vs. Pawan and others 07, 323, 447, 506 IPC is also port of Deputy Superintendent of rder dated 06.01.2020 passed by are produced in the Court, which respectively. de on behalf of the parties.

e y y d n o

e e - t s e r l d l s o f y h

¶7the case file i

¶8to dispute t respondents N

¶9the learned t accused soug the complain and also rop accused pres disbelieved s Investigating the petitioner pistol and fir Even no such accordingly summoning u against the pr

¶10Hon'ble Sup Punjab, (200

I have heard learned coun in great detail.

Learned counsel for the p the above said submissions m No.3 to 5.

It is also relevant that wh trial Court has recorded that "… ght to be summoned were menti nant to make the alleged offence pe in all the other family memb sently facing trial. The finding straightway.".Relying upon the g Agency whereupon it was fou r/complainant that respondent N red gunshots on the complainan h country-made pistol was recov observed in the impugned o under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is tha roposed accused. However, in th

At this stage, reference m preme Court in the case titled as 09) 16 SCC 46: wherein it has b "21….An order un therefore, should n first informant or nsel for the parties and perused petitioner has been utterly unable made by learned counsel for hile passing the impugned order, ….It appears that the names of ioned in the FIR deliberately by appear more grievous in nature bers and known persons of the g of the police, thus, cannot be investigation carried out by the und that the allegation made by No.4 had taken out country made nt party, were found to be false. ered during investigation. It was order that the prerequisite for at a prima facie case is made out he present case, it was not so. may be made to judgment of the s "Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of een held that: nder Section 319 of the Code, not be passed only because the one of the witnesses seeks to

d e r , f y e e e e y e . s r t e f

e o

¶11the Hon'ble Punjab and power under power, which cases wher following ob Court in Har

implicate other pe reasons are require as to satisfy the ing ipse dixit would n evidence must be c purpose of exer jurisdiction. For th courts are required the tests being whe which would reaso person sought to be

The aforementioned view Supreme Court in the case of "H d Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92", w r Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a dis h has to be exercised sparingly e the circumstances so wa servations and guidelines issu rdeep Singh's case (supra) are a "110. We accordin as follows : Question Nos. 1 & I Q.1 What is the s Section 319 Cr.P.C

AND Q.III Whether the Section 319(1) Cr comprehensive sens erson(s). Sufficient and cogent ed to be assigned by the court so gredients of the provisions. Mere not serve the purpose. Such an convincing one at least for the rcise of the extraordinary he aforementioned purpose, the d to apply stringent tests; one of ether evidence on record is such onably lead to conviction of the e summoned." w has further been upheld by Hardeep Singh Vs. State of wherein it has been held that scretionary and extraordinary and cautiously only in those arrant. In this regard, the ued by the Hon'ble Supreme apposite: - ngly sum up our conclusions III stage at which power under C. can be exercised? e word "evidence" used in r.P.C. has been used in a se and includes the evidence

t o e n e y e f h e

collected during "evidence" is limit during trial? A. In Dharam Pal's has already he cognizance of an of person not named whom materials ar filed by the po investigation. Such under Section 193 Judge need not wai 319 Cr.P.C. becom an additional Cr.P.C., significant have to be taken no As a trial commen an inquiry can only trial inquiry. Inquir 202 Cr.P.C.; and u species of the inqu 319 Cr.P.C. Mater in course of such corroboration of t court after the trial of power under Sec add an accused wh Column 2 of the c above position the 319 Cr.P.C. has to not literally i.e. as trial. investigation or the word ted to the evidence recorded s case, the Constitution Bench eld that after committal, ffence can be taken against a d as an accused but against re available from the papers olice after completion of h cognizance can be taken 3 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions it till `evidence' under Section mes available for summoning accused. Section tly, uses two expressions that ote of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. nces after framing of charge, ly be understood to be a pre-ries under Sections 200, 201, under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are uiry contemplated by Section rials coming before the Court h enquiries can be used for the evidence recorded in the l commences, for the exercise ction 319 Cr.P.C., and also to hose name has been shown in charge-sheet. In view of the e word `evidence' in Section o be broadly understood and s evidence brought during a

Question No. II Q.II Whether the Section 319(1) C evidence tested b court can exercise provision even on made in the examin concerned? A. Considering the Cr.P.C. a person disclosed is only su in such an event u the proceeding ag commence from cognizance, the C evidence against t summoned to be tes Question No. IV Q.IV What is the required to invoke Cr.P.C. to arraign power under Secti exercised only if t accused summoned convicted? A. Though under S accused subsequen as if he had been initially took cogn degree of satisfacti summoning a perso would be the same e word "evidence" used in Cr.P.C. could only mean by cross-examination, or the e the power under the said n the basis of the statement nation-in-chief of the witness e fact that under Section 319 against whom material is ummoned to face the trial and under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. gainst such person is to the stage of taking of Court need not wait for the the accused proposed to be sted by cross-examination. e nature of the satisfaction the power under Section 319 n an accused? Whether the ion 319 (1) Cr.P.C. can be the court is satisfied that the d will in all likelihood be Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the ntly impleaded is to be treated an accused when the Court nizance of the offence, the ion that will be required for on under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as for framing a charge. The

¶12and 106 of reproduced h

difference in the summoning the o subsequent accused the trial may have the original accuse such trial that ma the newly summone of an accused will therefore the for summoning and subsequent) ha Question No. V Q.V Does the powe extend to persons named in the FIR b have been discharg A. A person not na though named in charge sheeted or discharged can be Cr.P.C. provided f that such person c accused already fa as an accused w concerned the requ 398 Cr.P.C. has to can be summoned a

The following observatio Hardeep Singh's case (supra hereinbelow:- degree of satisfaction for original accused and a d is on account of the fact that e already commenced against ed and it is in the course of aterials are disclosed against ed accused. Fresh summoning l result in delay of the trial - degree of satisfaction the accused (original as to be different. er under Section 319 Cr.P.C. s not named in the FIR or but not charge-sheeted or who ged? amed in the FIR or a person the FIR but has not been r a person who has been summoned under Section 319 from the evidence it appears can be tried along with the acing trial. However, in so far who has been discharged is uirement of Sections 300 and o be complied with before he afresh". ons as contained in Paras 105 a) are also relevant and are

"105. Power discretionary and a be exercised spari where the circumst is not to be exerci the Sessions Judge other person may a offence. Only wher occurs against a before the court exercised and not in

¶106Thus, w facie case is to be before the court no of Cross-Examinat evidence than mer The test that has to than prima facie c framing of charge. extent that the evid lead to convictio satisfaction, the exercising power Section 319 Cr.P.C appears from the being the accused clear from the word be tried together used are not 'for convicted'. There Court acting under any opinion as to th r under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is a an extra-ordinary power. It is to ingly and only in those cases tances of the case so warrant. It ised because the Magistrate or e is of the opinion that some also be guilty of committing that re strong and cogent evidence person from the evidence led that such power should be n a casual and cavalier manner. we hold that though only a prima e established from evidence led ot necessarily tested on the anvil tion, it requires much stronger re probability of his complicity. be applied is one which is more case as exercised at the time of but short of satisfaction to an dence, if goes unrebutted, would on. In the absence of such court should refrain from under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In C., the purpose of providing if 'it evidence that any person not has committed any offence' is ds "for which such person could with the accused." The words which such person could be is, therefore, no scope for the r Section 319 Cr.P.C., to form he guilt of the accused."

a o s t r e t e d e

a d l r

e f n d h m n t t s d s e e m

¶13above said fa

14.

15.

19.07.2024 Sunena

Whether Whether

Learned counsel for the p actual and legal position.

The present petition,accor

Pending application(s) if a

r speaking/reasoned

r reportable

petitioner is unable to dispute the rdingly, stands dismissed. any also stand(s) disposed of.

(Nidhi Gupta)

Judge

e