The single judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Arun Dass Vs State of Punjab & Others held that there should be evidence available on the file in the shape of oral evidence or documentary evidence in order to invoke its powers to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered under sections 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC however, respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3 were found to be innocent as they were found not to be present at the spot. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded and the application was filed under section 319 CrPc was moved for summoning the respondent 2 and respondent 3 as an additional accused. The said application was duly allowed by the trial court. However, aggrieved by the same both the respondents filed the revision petition and the said revision petition was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the revisional court has committed a grave error in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were specifically named in the FIR as also in the deposition of the complainant. It was further contended that the well-reasoned order of the Magistrate has been set aside by the Sessions Court without any cogent reason whatsoever and therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were liable to face Trial as additional accused.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 has contended that the petitioner has improved his version qua the roles/injuries attributed to the respondents while deposing in Court. It was further submitted that the allegations against the answering respondents were thoroughly investigated by the DSP by associating both the parties and it was only then that an Inquiry Report came to exonerate the answering respondents. The said Inquiry Report was subsequently endorsed by the Superintendent of Police.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgement titled Michael Machado & another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & another, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 75 and Manjeet Singh Versus State of Haryana & others, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 25 and held that the Court has wide powers to summon a person as an accused who has been exonerated by the Investigating Agency, if it finds that there is sufficient evidence available against the said accused in order to try him along with the accused already facing trial.
However, there is no compelling duty to summon an accused. The discretionary power so conferred only be exercised to achieve criminal justice and must be based on the quality of evidence collected. In fact, the Court being the sole repository of justice, there is a duty cast upon it to uphold the law and ensure that the real accused should not get away by manipulating the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency.
What the Court needs to examine while adjudicating upon an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that there should be evidence available on the file in the shape of oral evidence or documentary evidence in order to invoke its powers to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The hon’ble court dismissed the petition as there are no reasonable prospects for the conviction of the private respondents.
CASE NAME- Arun Dass Vs State of Punjab & Others
CITATION- CRM-M-31293-2020
CORUM- Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
DATE- 16.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
