(Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
Naveen Kumar _____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Rishipal and Others _____________________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No(s). 7 of 2019 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9946 of 2016], decided on January 3, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The High Court, by way of impugned Judgment in Revision, set aside the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad allowing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning certain persons.
4. The First Information Report, being FIR No. 355 was lodged by the complainant on 06.12.2014 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 325, 452, 506, 341, 427, 323 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad.
5. The police filed the chargesheet against certain persons and omitted some of them who were named in the FIR and also in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After examination of PW1 in Court, an application was filed before the trial court so as to summon the accused persons namely, Rishi Pal, Chet Ram, Balwant, Sukki, Surender, Jeetu and Ashok. The trial court, after examining the material on record, the FIR and also the statement of PW1, which was recorded during the course of the trial, allowed the application in part, summoning six of the accused persons and declined to summon Ashok, as he was not named in the FIR.
6. The High Court set aside the order on the ground that though the names of the aforesaid six accused persons were mentioned in the FIR, there was no discussion about their roles and as to how many injuries have been received by the injured and the mere fact that the names of these persons have been mentioned in the FIR and also in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and deposition of PW1 in the Court, in the opinion of the High Court, could not have formed a ground to summon the additional accused.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides at length and gone through the order passed by the trial court as well as by the High Court and also perused the FIR and the deposition of PW1 and other material. In our opinion, the trial court has assigned proper reasons and discussed the material on record and held that was enough material for summoning the accused persons. What is the specific role attributed to the accused persons could not have been a ground for setting aside the summoning order when their names were mentioned in the FIR. The trial court has not summoned those accused persons whose names were not there in the FIR. Apart from that, we have seen the statement of Hitesh, the injured person, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in Court also, he has specifically named the accused persons who were summoned.
8. In the above circumstances, there is adequate material so as to summon the accused persons and we find no material on the basis of which the police have left out the accused who have been named in the FIR. Be that as it may, in view of the material on record, the FIR and the statements of PW1 and Hitesh, we are satisfied that there was adequate material on record to summon these accused persons.
9. The learned counsel has relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, in which it was laid down that “the court can exercise power under Section 319 after commencement of trial, once court inquiry has commenced.” It would depend upon the facts of each case whether the powers are to be exercised or not.
10. In the above circumstances, we find the impugned order of the High Court to be unsustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9946 of 2016
Naveen Kumar _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
Rishipal & Ors __________________________________ Respondent(s)
(IA No. 77106/2017-EX-PARTE STAY)
Date : 03-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Seeta Ram Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR
Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.
Ms. Lubna Ishrat Siddiqui, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
———
