VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J. K. Khanna, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order dated 21-3-96 passed by the then IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly summoning the revisionist as an accused in exercise of powers under Section 193, Cr. P.C. in S.T. No. 722 of 1994, under Sections 323/504/506/307/498-A/147/149 and 420 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, district Bareilly.

(3.) On the report of respondent No. 2 a case crime No. 420 of 1993 under the aforesaid sections as well as under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The present revisionist was also nominated as an accused in the First Information Report. However, the police submitted chargesheet against four accused persons and no chargesheet was submitted against the present revisionist. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions an application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge for summoning the present revisionist as one of the accused to be tried alongwith other accused persons. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing counsel for the parties, by the impugned order, allowed the prayer for summoning revisionist Vipin Kumar Agarwal as an accused.3A. It is the order, which is being challenged in this revision mainly on the ground that powers of summoning can be invoked by the Court of Sessions under Section 319, Cr.P.C. after some material has appeared against the accused (revisionist) in the evidence adduced by the prosecution whereas in the instant case no evidence has yet been adduced, that at the time of the framing of the charge the learned Sessions Judge applied his mind to the facts of the case and after applying his mind to the facts of the case the learned Sessions Judge had not summoned the revisionist. It was only after 11 dates were fixed for prosecution, that an application was moved for summoning the revisionist also as an accused and that no chargesheet was submitted by the police after conclusion of investigation and no protest petition was filed by the complainant against the revisionist and lastly that the offences by the present revisionist were allegedly committed in America. Therefore, the Courts in India have no jurisdiction to summon the accused. For opposite party No. 2, it is submitted that powers have been exercised by the Sessions Court under Section 193, Cr.P.C. to whom the case was committed by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to summon any person as an accused against whom the material collected during investigation discloses commission of the offence and yet no chargesheet has been submitted by the police against him, that there are allegations that offences were also committed within India and in the local jurisdiction of the Court at Bareilly and that non-submission of the chargesheet by the police or non filing of the protest petition would not jeopardize the prosecution case.