Punjab-Haryana High Court
Irshad vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 11 November, 2022
CRR No.2418 of 2018 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No.2418 of 2018
Date of Decision:11.11.2022
Irshad
---Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate
for private respondents
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL (ORAL)
The petitioner through instant petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is
seeking setting aside of order dated 1.5.2018 whereby Additional Sessions Judge,
Mewat has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 319
Cr.P.C.
The facts emerging from record and which are necessary for the
adjudication of present petition are that one person namely Irshad son of Moosa
lodged a complaint with police that on 16.4.2016 while he alongwith his relative
Jakir son of Rahim Khan was returning to his home from the fields found Nasim
son of Suleman and Mehboob son of Wali Mohammad standing armed with lathis
and dandas. They started assaulting him with lathis and dandas and dragged him
inside their house. Jakir who was accompanying him rushed to his family
members and his family members namely Moosa, Sher Mohamed, Taffajul and
1 of 4
Irshad came for his rescue. Nabbu, Abdulla, Rehmatulla, Wahab, Gaffar, Badru,
Kammu, Harun, Isub, Jafru, Aabid, Ashif, Majida, Moosa son of Abdul Rehman,
Rashida and Akram armed with lathis, dandas, farsa etc. came there and started
beating his family members. The aforesaid assailants after causing injuries left the
spot. The complainant and his family members were taken away to Civil Hospital,
Punhana where doctor referred them to Civil Hospital, Mandikhera. Moosa, Sher
Mohamed, Taffajul and Irshad were further referred to Medical College, Nalhar.
On the afore-stated complaint, FIR No. 200 dated 17.4.2016 under
Sections 148, 323, 324, 341, 342, 307, 506 and 149 IPC was registered at Police
Station, Punhana. The FIR was registered against 18 persons, however, the police
after competing investigation filed challan against 11 of them.
The petitioner preferred an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
seeking summoning of six persons who are arrayed as respondents No. 2 to 7
herein. The matter came up for consideration before Additional Sessions Judge,
Nuh, who vide order dated 1.5.2018 dismissed application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police during
investigation has wrongly exonerated the respondents. The role of each accused
was specifically disclosed in the complaint and Moosa father of Irshad in his
deposition dated 21.2.2017 has categorically disclosed injuries suffered by him
and role of each respondent. Learned ASJ has miserably ignored the role
attributed to each respondent and acting in a mechanical manner passed impugned
order.
Learned State counsel submitted that police has conducted fair
enquiry and persons not found in scuffle had been exonerated and no person can
be implicated just on the asking of complainant or victim.
Learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that trial
2 of 4
court has passed a reasoned and speaking order. There is no infirmity in the
impugned order, thus, interference on the part of this Court is unwarranted.
I have heard arguments and gone through the record with the able
assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The petition is bereft of merit.
Learned trial court has recorded a finding that there is only one injury
on the head of victim which is attributed to Suleman. It has been further recorded
that persons whose role was disclosed are already facing trial.
The power conferred by Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in
routine and mechanical manner. The power to summon any person as additional
accused is an extraordinary power which needs to be exercised judicially and
sparingly. It is settled proposition of law that criminal law cannot be put into
motion in a mechanical manner because it directly affects life and liberty of a
person.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently relied upon deposition
dated 21.2.2017, made by Moosa before trial court. From the perusal of
statements of Irshad and Moosa, it is hard to believe that 18 persons at one point
of time attacked upon them still they were competent to recognize by name each
of them as well as recall weapons used and attribute injuries caused by them.
Learned trial court has noted that there is only one injury, thus, there was no
reason to believe that private respondents had caused injuries to the victim.
A Five-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and thereafter
other Benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments have held
that a person cannot be summoned mechanically and Court is supposed to
examine the veracity of the additional evidence brought on record. There is no
need of cross-examination of witnesses and trial Court can summon any person as
additional accused if from the evidence either documentary or oral, it comes out
3 of 4
that proposed accused is part of the alleged offence.
In the case in hand, the police has conducted thorough investigation
and there is no allegation of bias against the police. Even otherwise, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the private respondents are influential people or
they had influenced the police officials. There is no additional evidence on record
which could compel the trial Court to summon the private respondents under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no ground to interfere with impugned order dated
1.5.2018 passed by learned ASJ, Mewat. The petition deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
11.11.2022
paramjit
4 of 4
