SHINGARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 26.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the order dated 2.7.2014, passed by J.M.I.C, Ludhiana summoning respondents no.2 to 4 as additional accused in case F.I.R No. 161 dated 1.7.2011 under sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, 34 I.P.C, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, has been set aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner/complainant Shingara Singh had at the first opportunity available, named the private respondents during his statement recorded before the court and accordingly the Trial Court had rightly issued the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the revisional court has proceeded erroneously while passing the impugned order has analyzed the evidence to the extent of satisfying itself as to whether it was sufficient for convicting the summoned accused/private respondents and such course of action was contrary to settled law. It is further contended that the impugned order cannot sustain as the statement of the complainant/petitioner herein could not have been rejected only on the basis that he had not attributed specific injuries to the private respondents.

(3.) IN the first instance, it may be noticed that the J.M.I.C., Ludhiana while passing the order dated 2.7.2014 at Annexure P -2 while summoning the private respondents herein as additional accused had been alive to the settled principles governing exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C and had observed in the order itself that such power which is conferred on the court should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance only then a person can be added as additional accused but thereafter has proceeded to allow the application under section 319 Cr.P.C in the light of the following observations: -