RAJU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement of one Balbir Singh the present case was registered under Sections 323/324/326/302/506/34 IPC at Police Station Shahbad. As per the allegations the present four petitioners and their co- accused namely Balbir Singh alias Bira and Amir Singh have been attributed specific injuries with different weapons. The present petitioners were, however, found innocent by the investigating agency and the challan was submitted only against Balbir Singh and Amir Singh their co-accused. During trial when the statement of the complainant was recorded, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioners asserting therein that they are specifically named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient material to proceed against them. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order dated 13.1.2004 has summoned the present petitioners also to stand trial along with other two co-accused. Aggrieved by the said order of summoning, the petitioners have now knocked at the door of this Court.

(2.) PURSUANT to notice, Mr. S.S. Brar, learned D.A.G., Haryana, puts appearance for respondent No. 1 while Mr. B.L. Gulati, Advocate, appears for respondent No. 2.

(3.) LEARNED counsel does not join issue so far as attribution of specific part to the present petitioners with regard to the main incident is concerned. The only argument advanced by Mr. Malik is that in the instant case, Sonu and Avtar Singh are of the age of less than 18 years as is prima facie evident from their School Leaving Certificates Annexures P-1 and P-2 and as such in their case, there could not be a joint trial with their other co-accused on account of prohibition envisaged in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., only those accused can be summoned who can be tried together with other accused already facing trial. From this, learned counsel wants to develop that Sonu and Avtar Singh being juveniles, cannot be tried along with their other co-accused during the same trial. The very order of summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. thus, is bad in the eye of law. He then contends that the only remedy open to the complainant in this eventuality is to resort to filing of a complaint against the accused who are juveniles. For Gurmukh Singh petitioner, the learned counsel fairly states that there is no documentary evidence regarding age.