UMED SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the respondents No. 2 to 5 was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of present case are that on the statement of complainant Umed Singh, FIR No. 3 dated 03.01.2008 under Section 302,201,364,147,148 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Narnaud was registered against the accused persons for the murder of the uncle of the complainant-Daya Chand by burning him alive.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5, on the other hand, relied on the judgements rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another reported as 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 200 and Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand reported as 2009(1)RCR (Criminal) 504 to state that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such persons or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be used by the Court lightly but should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist. However, in both these cases, referred to above, the guideline was that 'a person should be summoned if only there is possibility of recording of judgement of conviction against him.' In the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ram Pal Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported as (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 423. the appellants were not named in the FIR. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the trial Court and the High Court after considering the evidence of PW1 thought it necessary for the appellants to be summoned. Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused while holding that: