CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, two aforementioned criminal revisions are being disposed of, arising out of the same impugned order dtd. 9/8/2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner through learned Public Prosecutor for summoning the private respondents as additional accused was dismissed. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CRR-2874-2018.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Chander Singh, had made a complaint to the police alleging therein that on 27/8/2017 at around 7:30/8:00PM, he was present at the Bus Stand, Dhatir and on the other side of the road, his son Jagat Singh was present in a Scorpio vehicle. In the meantime, some miscreants came on two vehicles and three motor cycles. The assailants in connivance with each other fired shots upon his son Jagat Singh, as a result of which he died at the spot. Thereafter, the assailants fled away from the spot in their respective vehicles. During investigation, the police declared respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (in CRR-2874-2018) and respondents No. 2 and 3 (in CRR-2288-2019) as innocent. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the aforesaid private respondents as an additional accused which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order impugned herein. Hence the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner in his statements before the police as well as the trial Court, had specifically named respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (in CRR-2874-2018) and respondents No. 2 and 3 (in CRR-2288-2019) to be part of an unlawful assembly, which had caused death of his son-Jagat Singh and that they had actively participated in the occurrence, however, the trial Court wrongly drew a conclusion that the statements of the complainant before the police as well as the trial Court had not fulfilled the requirement of exercise of extraordinary powers conferred on the Court. Learned counsel has further contended that the trial Court while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the matter in its right perspective and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Arshida vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal).