NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 2/3/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby, the petitioner has been summoned to face trial by allowing the application under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') filed by the prosecution in FIR No. 285 dtd. 7/8/2016, under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, certain facts need to be enumerated here.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case, the investigating agency conducted due investigation into the allegations and found the petitioner innocent and a similar statement of the complainant, as recorded while testifying before the trial Court, which allegations were also part of the FIR, was taken into consideration by the investigating agency and thereafter, the investigating agency came to a conclusion that petitioner is innocent of the allegations being alleged hence, mere statement of the complainant, which reiterated the same allegations in the FIR, cannot be made basis for summoning the petitioner to be tried as an accused by allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the only other fact, which weighed with the trial Court for allowing the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution to summon the petitioner as an additional accused to be tried for the offence, is that when the investigation was with the Crime Branch, the petitioner was sought to be proceeded against for the commission of the crime, though later on, when the investigation was transferred to the District Police, petitioner was found innocent, which fact cannot be a valid ground for the trial Court to come to the conclusion that there is, prima-facie, evidence against the petitioner so as to face the trial.

(3.) Learned counsel further argued that the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 92 as well as in Civil Appeal No. 763 of 2017 titled as Brijendra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 27/4/2017, are not met in the present case so as to allow the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an additional accused to face the trial and, therefore, the impugned order dtd. 2/3/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind is erroneous not only on the factual aspect but on law as well.