SUMITRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS by the petitioner/complainant assailing the order dtd. 18/1/2023 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul, whereby her application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of respondent No.2 Vikram, respondent No.3 Raj Kumar and respondent No.4 Mamta Devi, as additional accused in FIR No.11 dtd. 9/1/2016 under Ss. 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahindergarh was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order (Annexure P-8) suffers from patent illegality and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It was urged that the petitioner had specifically named the proposed accused persons, i.e. the private respondents, in the FIR (Annexure P-1) and had made clear and categorical allegations against each of them regarding their participation in the alleged assault.

(3.) It was further submitted that despite the specific naming and alleged involvement of the private respondents, the police, allegedly acting in connivance with them, chose not to array them as accused and deliberately placed their names in column No.2 of the charge-sheet.