Shiv Shankar @ Rinku v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1- 2023:PHHC:154142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (116) DATE OF DECISION:- 23.11.2023 SHIV SHANKAR @ RINKU ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:
Ms. Pinki Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present revision petition has been filed assailing order dated 26.04.2023, whereby application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 to 14 as additional accused, has been declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in FIR No.241 dated 29.08.2019 registered for offences under Section 307, 323, 324, 325, IPC read with Section 34, IPC at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal, Annexure P-1.
2.
Factual matrix leading to the filing of the petition is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered by Mahender Singh stating that he is a beggar. On 22.03.2019 along with his nephew when he went to
-2- 2023:PHHC:154142 the village temple at around 08:00 A.M. to light incense sticks, they were attacked by Mela Ram son of Pratap, Mela Ram son of Bohpa, Shamsher son of Hardeep, Shamsher son of Kalu and Pratap son of Harsh, who were armed with Gandasis and sticks. Other inhabitants of the village also joined them. His nephew was injured. All the assailants were Jats. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan, Annexure P-5, was filed, wherein the above named persons were found to be involved in the offence. However, names of Harsh, Nippa, Harry, Jagroop, Jagar, Charanjeet Kaur, Sinder Kaur, Dara Singh, Reshma, Suresh, Sonu, Kulwinder and Gurmeet (respondents No.2 to 14) were kept in column No.2.
3.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in his examination as prosecution witness No. 1, petitioner has specially named respondents No.2 to 14 and ascribed injuries to them. She submits that despite moving an application, Annexure P-2, for summoning respondents No.2 to 14 as additional accused, it has been erroneously declined by the learned Sessions Court.
4.
Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the State. 5.
Upon instructions, State counsel has opposed the petition. He has made a detailed reference to the challan to submit that no material was found against the private respondents.
6.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 7.
Section 319, Cr.P.C confers discretionary and extra ordinary power on the Court, which is to be exercised sparingly and only when the circumstances of the case so warrant. The power is not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner, but when there is strong and cogent
-3- 2023:PHHC:154142 evidence that a person not being an accused has committed an offence for which he can be tried together with other accused. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira Versus State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289, a Constitution Bench, while laying down the guidelines has held that if the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is filed regarding involvement of any other person in the offence, based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial, before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, the Trial Court shall pause the trial and proceed to decide the fate of the application. The Trial Court shall
!
"
# "
$
%&'
(!)
"
*
+
)
"
, !
-. -. (
%&
"
-4- 2023:PHHC:154142
%& &
%&/ #0 --.
-.
%
'
1
*
2 2 "
. %
(
*
!
- /
(
(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 23.11.2023 Kamal Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No