Rajeev Kumar S/O Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3902 Raj/2

         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

(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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)