BHARTHO DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY criminal case by way of FIR No. 38 dated 24.03.2009 under Section 457/380/427/506 IPC was registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal against Bhajan Lal, Karambir, Mahender, Pal and Balraj on the statement of the complainant Lachhman. On presentation of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. it transpired that during the course of inquiry, Harbir, Sanju, Parveen and Giano Devi were found innocent and placed in column No. 2, and challan against accused Bhajan Lal, Karambir, Mahender, Pal and Balraj was presented. It was thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning of additional accused Harbir, Gian Chand, Sanju, Parveen and Giano Devi by the prosecution. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal vide impugned order dated 20.11.2013 dismissed this application. It is against this finding the revisionist Bhartho Devi claiming herself to be one of the eye -witnesses of the incident and wife of complainant Lachhman, has come up in this revision petition challenging the very legality and propriety of the same.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the revisionist; Mr. Munish Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6.

(3.) THERE has been repeated disconcordant interpretation of these provisions throughout and in the case of 'Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab' , 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 552 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had laid down the proposition that the Sessions Court has power to add new accused to face trial and can do so after collecting evidence and not entire evidence. However, this Court in the case of 'Teja Singh v. State of Punjab', 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 652 has differed with the ratio laid down in Ranjit Singh's case (ibid) holding that a person can be summoned directly under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording evidence and thus, reflects the controversy surrounding this interpretation, and therefore, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which gave its findings in 'Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana' : 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 787 SC.