PRITPAL SINGH @ SONU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 27.04.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial in case FIR No.247 dated 07.09.2007 registered under Sections 304-A and 337 Penal Code at Police Station Dinanagar.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant-Sarabjit Singh wherein it was alleged that the complainant along with his grandson, namely, Rupinder Singh @ Rimi was going on motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Plus bearing registration No. PB-06G-4491 to Punjab and Sind Bank, Dinanagar. While returning back to their village, one Surjit Singh, who was grand uncle of the complainant, met them at the chowk of Sind Bank and started following them. When they reached near the Bus Stand of Dinanagar, the driver of an Indica car bearing registration No. PB-08- AF-6887, which was already standing, suddenly opened its window and Rimi turned his motorcycle to right side and applied brakes to save themselves. At the same time, a truck bearing registration No. PB-03-P-9721 was also coming from behind and it was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed. Without blowing any horn, it was struck against the motorcycle because of which, Rimi fell down from the motorcycle towards his right side and he was dragged by the truck to some distance. Resultantly, Rimi died under the truck as his head was totally crushed due to coming under the truck trolla and complainant also received scratches. The car driver ran away with the car and the driver of the truck also succeeded in fleeing by leaving the truck. On the basis of statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted. Thereafter, charges were framed on 15.11.2007. Statement of complainant-Sarabjit Singh was recorded wherein it was mentioned that the driver of the car was also involved in commission of the offence as due to his rash and negligent act, the accident occurred. After recording statement of complainant as PW1, an application was moved by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.04.2012, which has been challenged before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statement, even a single word was not mentioned by the complainant against the present petitioner and there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner. The Indica car was standing at the side of the road and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Learned counsel further submits that the window of the car was opened accidently when the deceased was passing from there because of which, he lost control of the motorcycle and took it to right side whereby he was hit by the truck trolla and was crushed under it. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence regarding the rash and negligent act of the petitioner as only in the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that they had fallen due to opening of the window of the Indica car. In case, the window had not opened, they would have crossed. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. can only be invoked when there is likelihood of conviction of the accused sought to be summoned but in the present case, not even a single word has been mentioned to show the satisfaction of the Summoning Court except the words that "some material had come on record to justify the summoning order". It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance as per impugned order has been taken after a lapse of more than four years and eight months whereas no cognizance of the offence can be taken after expiry of period of limitation as has been held by this Court in Amit Kumar Mathur Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 589 . Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a claim petition was also filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur by claimant-Narinder Kaur, mother of deceased, against Nachhatar Singh, Rachhpal Singh as well as Insurance Company and the name of present petitioner was not there. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 39 , judgments of this Court in Amit Kumar Mathur Vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 589 , Devender Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Misc. No. M-5576 of 2009 decided on 26.03.2013 , Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 311 , T. Amudha Sidhanathan and another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 628 , judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. State and others, 1990(3) RCR (Criminal) 289 as well as judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kamru and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 991 , Kimberly Clark Liver Ltd. Vs. State, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 432 and Ahmed Nawaj Alladin Vs. Station House Officer, Team-1, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 40 in support of his contentions.