ROHIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitions arise from a common FIR bearing No. 223 of 2/6/2017 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sonipat, embodying therein offences constituted under Ss. , 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 of the IPC, thereupon, both are amenable for a common order being rendered thereon. Moreso, when they arise from a common thereto summoning order, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, and, after allowing, the public prosecutor's application cast under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C.

(2.) At the outset, though, co-petitioner Rohit is attributed an incriminatory role, in the relevant lethal assault, as made upon the person of the deceased, but co-petitioner Mohit is not assigned any incriminatory role in the petition FIR, nor, he becomes named therein as an accused.

(3.) However, even with respect to the incriminatory role, as voiced in the FIR with specificity, with respect to co-accused Mohit, yet in the report filed under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C., by the investigating officer concerned, before the learned Court concerned, he has thereins, on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the arrested accused, and, as became made during their respective custodial interrogation(s), rather revealed that co-petitioner Mohit, did not participate with them, in the relevant lethal assault, as made upon the victim/deceased. Moreover, there is also a further articulation therein, that co-accused Mohit @ Tagga, has been discharged through an order made, on the apposite application, hence by the jurisdictionally empowered Court.