GURTEJ SINGH Vs. JAGRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision raises rather an interesting question of law. It is, whether a criminal Court in the instant case that of the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called as the Code) is entitled to take into consideration the material collected during investigation, and record a finding on the basis thereof not to proceed against a person, not facing trial before it, for an offence which he appears to have committed? The question has arisen in the manner mentioned hereafter.

(2.) One Karnail Singh was subjected to a murderous assault in the Court premises at Bhatinda at 2 p.m. on 11-12-1981. His son Gurtej Singh lodged first Information Report at the concerned police station. According to the version given in the first Information Report, there were four assailants. They were Nachhatn Singh, armed with Kirpan; Atma Singh son of Nihal Singh, armed with a Pistol; Jagrup Singh, armed with a Kirpan ; and Atma Singh son of Gajjan Singh, armed with a Kirpan. Nachhatar Singh accused was said to have been nabbed immediately after the occurrence. The police investigated the crime and submitted their police report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, focusing their attention against two accused, i.e., Nachhatar Singh and Atma Singh son of Nihal Singh as the culprits of the crime. According to the said report, Jagrup Singh and Atma Singh son of Gajjan Singh had not participated in the crime and, thus, they were formally shown in column No. 2. The learned Magistrate, in exercise of his functions under section 209 of the Code, committed Nachhatar Singh and Atma Singh son of Nihal Singh, accused persons, to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions Judge for offence under sections 307 and 302/34, Indian Penal Code. Shri Gurdial Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, to whom the trial was assigned, framed charge against these two persons and proceeded with the trial. The moment he had examined Karnail- Singh the victim, as a prosecution witness, and before cross- examination was conducted on him by the accused, an application was moved by the complainant for summoning the left out two culprits, namely, Jagrup Singh and Atma Singh son of Gajjan Singh, as accused, invoking powers under section 319 of the Code the learned trial Judge, vide, his elaborate order dated 31-5-1982, rejected the prayer. And this has given rise to the present revision petition.

(3.) As will be plain from the reading of the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the complainant being influenced by three factors: (i) the incident took place in the bread daylight in Court compound. The natural witnesses to the crime, be the lawyers and clerks, had joined the investigation. Their statements recorded by the police (some of whom have been named by him in the impugned order) disclose that there were only two culprits; (ii) Undisputedly, there was acute enmity between the complainant party and the accused party (presumably he meant the accused sought to be summoned) ; and (iii) The suspicion against the police for their having deliberately left out the two persons sought to be summoned as accused, was mis-founded as police officers functioned within the bounds of discipline and administrative control.