RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition lays challenge to order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") for summoning Jai Singh, Anil, Lakhan and Raju as additional accused to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to FIR No. 347 dated 30.7.2012 has been dismissed.

(2.) Ramesh Kumar, petitioner lodged the aforesaid FIR on the allegations that his brother Madan Lal alongwith his family is residing in H.No. 2809 DMC, Chandigarh. On 29.7.2012, there was some altercation between Madan Lal and Raja, resident of H.No. 2808, DMC, Chandigarh in connection with children. He had gone in front of H.No. 2808 to make Raja to understand and came back to the house of Madan Lal. In the meanwhile, Naresh, Rajesh sons of Bhalla, Deepak son of Babli and Raja resident of H.No. 2808 alongwith Bano resident of H.No. 2832 with 3-4 persons to whom he could identify from their appearance came armed with dandas and brick bats and attacked them. Naresh, Rajesh, Deepak, Bano caused injuries and other boys gave kick and fist blows to Madan Lal and Sunny and while leaving, they threatened that they would bring more persons and kill them. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against Raja, Rajesh, Deepak, Satpal, Bano and Naresh and they are facing trial.

(3.) The complainant appeared in the witness box on 18.7.2014. On the basis of his statement in the Court, the additional accused namely Jai Singh, Anil, Lakhan and Raju were sought to be summoned by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh has committed a serious error in disallowing prayer of the complainant/prosecution to summon the additional accused. It is argued that the trial court has dismissed the application by taking into consideration the number and nature of injuries sustained by the victim(s) referred to in para 07 of the impugned order but has not adverted to culpability of the additional accused for committing offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 506 IPC. It is vehemently argued that keeping in view the role attributed to the persons summoned as additional accused, they cannot be allowed to escape their liability.