SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition assailing an order dated 21.7.2010 passed by learned ASJ in SC No.19/10 and order dated 15.12.2008 passed by learned ACMM -I, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

(2.) THE FIR No.399/2006 was initially registered against Pradeep Sehrawat. In the said FIR names of four persons namely Davender, Sunil, Surender and Satinder @ Sonu Dagar were kept in column no.2 of the charge - sheet. Subsequently, a supplementary charge -sheet was filed wherein names of all these four persons were arrayed as accused in Column No. 4. The names of Kanshi Ram, Mahabal Mishra, Urmila Mishra, Kiran and Heera Mishra were kept in column no.2 in the said charge -sheet. Vide order dated 15.12.2008, the learned ACMM recorded that from the contents of both the charge -sheets and documents, it was evident that there is sufficient material available on record against the persons kept in column no.4 in the supplementary charge -sheet. Those persons were Surender, Sunil, Satender @ Sonu Dagar and Devender. As far as the accused persons kept in column no.2 of the supplementary charge -sheet was concerned, it was recorded by learned ACMM that though there is certainly reference at places regarding them, but the material available on record was not sufficient to proceed against them at this stage. He observed that these four persons can very well be summoned if additional evidence has been adduced against them during trial. Consequently, he ordered for summoning of accused persons namely Surender, Sunil, Satender @ Sonu Dagar and Devender.

(3.) THE said order has been assailed by the petitioners/ complainants. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was ample evidence in the shape of statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.PC and under Section 164 Cr.PC attributing specific role to the aforesaid accused persons placed in column no.2 in the commission of the offences along with co -accused persons. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments of Dharampal and other vs. State of Haryana [(2004) 13 SCC 9 and Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar [1993(2) SCC 16].