JAI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby application under Section 319 read with Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the petitioner for summoning the additional accused to face trial, has been dismissed. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that petitioner got lodged FIR No.89 dated 21.07.2012 under Sections 148/149/323/324/506/307 IPC at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad against Bhagwat Dayal, Ram Kumar Sarpanch, Kishna, Govind Ram @ Dandu, Dhanni, Jaggi, Bharat and others. After investigation at the first instance, police challaned only Ram Kumar Sarpanch and submitted its first report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, supplementary challan was submitted under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 506, 216/34 IPC against Kishan, Bharat, Jagdish @ Jaggi and Rati Ram whereas Bhagwat Dayal and Dhani Ram were held to be innocent and no details were given about Govind Ram. Petitioner moved an application under Section 319 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 to 4 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed vide impugned order. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner/complainant specifically named the accused in the FIR but the police failed to challan all the persons. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law in dismissing the application despite the fact that involvement of all the proposed accused is clear beyond doubt in the scuffle. Trial Court appears to be impressed with the statements of the hostile witnesses. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.