ARSHIDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, whereby, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning respondent Nos. 2 to 4, as additional accused has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused-respondents have been specifically named in the FIR and specific allegations of rape have been levelled against them. The prosecutrix has also named them in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as the statement recorded before the trial Court. The learned Court below erred in relying upon the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whereby the accused-respondents have been found innocent only on the ground that the call details of the accused did not show their location in Madhya Pradesh at the relevant time.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused-respondents, state that the case stands decided on 21.10.2013 and therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous as pendency of trial is a condition precedent for summoning the additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel cites Harjinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 1 RCR(Cri) 1038.

(3.) The learned State-counsel cites Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and another, 2002 3 RCR(Cri) 191and argued that by the decision of the main case, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C will not become infructuous.