KHUSHNUMA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

(2.) The revision has been filed against the summoning order dated 26.4.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1358 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of case crime No. 304 of 2013 whereby the revisionist, who is married sister-in-law of the deceased has been summoned on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No. 2 to face trial under the charged Sections.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that though the revisionist was named in the first information report but after investigation, the Investigating agency found complicity of the revisionist to be false and, therefore, exonerated him and submitted charge sheet against other accused persons, as such, order impugned be set aside. In support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 141, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'an order under Section 319, should not be passed only because first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other persons(s)- sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by court so as to satisfy ingredients of Section 319.' Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 355, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'power under Section 319 can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.' Leaned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon judgments in the case of Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 50 AllCriC 343 and in the case of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohad. Rafiq and another, 2007 58 AllCriC 254. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009 2 SCC 696), in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court (Ram Singh and others Vs. Ram Niwas and another, 2009 65 AllCriC 971), in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the event, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. It has been further held that the provision of Section 319, Cr.P.C. confers an extraordinary power upon a court to summon a person who, at the relevant time, was not being tried as an accused, subject, of course, to fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that he had committed an offence. A finding to that effect must be premised on the evidence that had been brought on record.