Victim A vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 12266 P&H

CRR-2033-2022                                                                -1-

114         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRR-2033-2022
                                              Date of Decision: 27.09.2022

Victim "A" (name withheld)                           ..... Petitioner
                                 Versus

State of Haryana and another                         .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ


Present:    Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order

dated 2.8.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Panipat, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under

Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No.2-Naveen as additional

accused to face trial alongwith the accused, who is already facing trial, has

been declined by the trial Court.

As per the facts of the case, the FIR was lodged by the mother

of the victim, wherein she alleged that her daughter (victim) who is 22 years

of age went missing from home. On confirmation, she found that Deepak

had enticed her away on the pretext of marriage. The FIR was lodged for

taking legal action. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced

and the challan was presented against accused Deepak. However, during

trial the prosecutrix was examined as PW-16, wherein she named

respondent No.2-Naveen as well for his complicity and thus, filed

application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning him. After hearing

the parties, the learned trial Court declined the same vide order dated

2.8.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way

1 of 3

of filing the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended

that the learned trial Court has fallen in error in declining the application

under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. He has submitted that the

prosecutrix appeared as PW-16 on 25.5.2022 and in her examination-in-

chief she specifically deposed that apart from accused Deepak, who is

already facing trial, his brother Naveen had committed rape with her. She

alleged that she was threatened by respondent No.2-Naveen to make viral

her obscene photographs on social media, thus, she was blackmailed by

him. However, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and illegally

declined the application for summoning respondent No.2-Naveen. He has

relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manjeet

Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25 and has

submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and respondent

No.2 be directed to be summoned to face the trial alongwith the accused

already facing trial.

Heard.

Apparently, the FIR in question was lodged by the mother of

the prosecutrix, wherein, only the name of accused Deepak was mentioned

and respondent No.2- Naveen was never named in the same. During the

investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C. and even in this statement, the prosecutrix deposed nothing about

respondent No.2-Naveen. A thorough and fair investigation was conducted

by the Investigating Agency and thereafter, challan was filed under Section

173 Cr.P.C. Even during the investigation no material was found regarding

involvement of any other accused in the alleged offence. However after

2 of 3

having been recorded about 15 prosecution witnesses, prosecution stepped

into the witness box as PW-16 and for the first time she named respondent

No.2-Naven having complicity in the alleged offence. As per the law settled

by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,

(2014) 3 SCC 92, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with

extreme care and caution. It is evident that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid

down that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and

cannot be used in a cavalier manner. The satisfaction of the Court in

summoning the proposed accused should have been more than the

satisfaction required for framing of charges. However, the facts and

circumstances of the present case, do not qualify on the parameters set by

Hon'ble the Apex Court. Applying the law settled to the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is deciphered that name of respondent No.2-

Naveen has surfaced after a considerable long time for the first time, when

the prosecution was examined as prosecution witness. During the

investigation and in the examination of the other prosecution witnesses no

evidence was found regarding the involvement of respondent No.2. In the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law

settled, this Court finds that the view taken by the Court below suffers from

no illegality. Thus, the petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby

dismissed.

                                               (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
27.9.2022                                          JUDGE
sharmila
                    Whether Speaking/Reasoned         :    Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable                :    Yes/No


                                3 of 3