Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State (Nct Delhi)
1999 Latest Caselaw 624 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.4.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 209/1997 directing issuance of summons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

2. An investigation pursuant to the FIR No. 248/1996 registered under Sections 302/34, IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 302/34, IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. At the stage of framing of the charge, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor to summon the petitioner as an accused in the case. On consideration of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the documents filed in support thereof, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 302/34, IPC has been made out against the petitioner. He, therefore, allowed the application and arraigned the petitioner as an accused in the case vide order dated 4.4.1998. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court.

3. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 VII AD (SC) 217, it was held that once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked. Thus, the present case is fully covered by the decision in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra). At the stage of framing a charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to invoke the provision of Sections 319, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, constrained to observe that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a patent illegality in directing issuance of summons to the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.P.C. which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the impugned order directing issuance of summons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner is quashed.