DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition lays challenge to order dated 3.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak whereby the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") for summoning Ranbir Singh son of Balbir, Vinod and Manoj sons of Ram Chander and Ram Chander son of Bhim Singh as additional accused to face trial pertaining to FIR No. 298 dated 2.8.2011 for offence under Sections 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"), has been dismissed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the reasoning adopted by the trial court in dismissing the application cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has pointed out that the trial court has dismissed the application primarily on two counts that the investigating officer has not been examined to state as to on what basis the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused were found innocent during investigation and further the court will summon a person as an accused if it is satisfied from the materials on record that there is sufficient material which would lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. It is argued with vehemence that if the trial court was of the opinion that examination of the investigating officer is required for disposal of the application, the court could keep the application pending subject to examination of the investigating officer but non -examination of the investigating officer cannot become foundation for dismissal of the application. According to counsel, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others : 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 623. the standard of satisfaction to be recorded by the trial court for summoning an additional accused is certainly short of materials on record leading to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 to 5 have not appeared in the Court to controvert the plea of the petitioner.