NARESH Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Etah in Case No. 3469 of 2005 (State Vs. Jai Singh and others) under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Baghwala, District Etah whereby the learned Magistrate while allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionist to face trial under Sections 323, 504 and 325/34 I.P.C. alongwith other co-accused persons.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission and perused the record.

(3.) The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist are that the summoning order is illegal, erroneous and bad in the eyes of law, the revisionist is innocent and no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. It has further been submitted that the I.O. has investigated the case and after recording the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. of many witnesses he found the presence of the revisionist doubtful which is clearly evident from the perusal of the statement of complainant injured also. It has been submitted that the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned court below. It has been next contended that the court below has not considered that there was no clinching and cogent evidence against the revisionist and only an observation that the revisionist has been found involved in the occurrence is not at all sufficient to invoke the extra ordinary power conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the Apex Court in a catena of judgments has repeatedly held that the summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stands on a different footing and it should be dealt with the higher standards by the courts, sparingly and only if, compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than accused.