NIPPI ALIAS VINAY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by learned trial Court whereby petitioner was summoned as additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.93 dated 19.3.2013 under Sections 344, 376, 506, 34 IPC Police Station Uchana, District Jind. The petitioner was found innocent by the investigating agency.

(2.) The bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that summoning order has been passed without subjecting the prosecutrix to cross-examination which is impermissible under the law. It was submitted that in view of the confict of opinion on the question in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998 7 SCC 149 and Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1993 2 SCC 16, the matter was referred to larger Bench in Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 13 SCC 9 and, therefore, the Magistrate should have collected material before invoking its discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(3.) In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Parkash @ Pappu and another, 2013 3 RCR(Cri) 333 wherein it was observed that the said reference is still pending. In the said case wherein the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 (1)(b) in a Sessions trial against those who were kept in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was upheld.