HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 787/2021
Rajeev Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of Jhali Ji Ka Barana,
Police Station Gandoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.
2. Rohit Sharma S/o Shiv Charan, Resident Of Jhali Ka
Barana, Police Station, Gandoli, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 19/08/2021
1. Complainant/petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by Order dated 16.07.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Bundi, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. It is contended by counsel for the complainant/petitioner that respondent No.2 was named in the FIR and his statement recorded before the Court. Court below has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is contended that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court if from the evidence, it appears that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may (Downloaded on 26/08/2021 at 09:04:45 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-787/2021] proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to be committed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368, wherein Apex Court after discussing the Law laid down by the Apex Court in different cases dismissed the appeal of the accused and upheld the orders passed by the Court summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. It is contended that the police after due investigation did not find a case to be made out against the respondent No.2, therefore, no charge-sheet was filed against him. It is also contended that no overt act is assigned to the accused respondent. As per the injury report, complainant has sustained one lacerated wound on the head, swelling on right foot and bruises. It is argued that no overt act is assigned to the accused respondent in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded before the trial Court. It is also contended that eye witness has been declared hostile.
5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgment of the Apex Court cited by counsel for the petitioner.
6. In Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, Apex Court held that powers under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not (Downloaded on 26/08/2021 at 09:04:45 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLR-787/2021] in a casual and cavalier manner. The Court further held that test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC.
7. In the present case in hand, respondent No.2 is named in the FIR, however, no overt act is assigned to him. In the statement of the complainant also, he is named but no overt act is assigned to him. He has assigned the injury caused to him on the head to the accused who is being tried by the Court below. The eye witness has turned hostile and the Court below has dealt with the entire material on record into two perspective.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders to exercise the powers of revision.
9. Revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.
10. Stay application also stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J CHANDAN /26 (Downloaded on 26/08/2021 at 09:04:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)