SANJAY KHANNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 25.2.2005, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial, alongwith the already arraigned accused, pursuant to an order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor in any statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in the challan filed. No role was attributed to him as regards the commission of any offence. The learned trial Court, upon receipt and perusal of the challan, did not summon the petitioner as there was no material on record. It is contended that in view of the aforementioned facts, the learned trial Court could not have summoned the petitioner by passing an order under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is further contended that the petitioner has been summoned pursuant to the deposition of PW-1 Surinder Kumar Malhotra. In the aforementioned statement, PW-1 merely alleges that the petitioner, who is the owner of Khanna Locks, colluded with the other accused, one of whom was his employee, to commit theft. In the absence of any evidence of collusion or conspiracy or any circumstance to suggest such collusion or conspiracy, the learned trial Court erred in summoning the petitioner. It is contended that the learned trial Court, while summoning the petitioner, lost sight of the basic principles that govern the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not disclose a process of reasoning, much less assigns any reason for summoning the petitioner. The learned trial Court was required to examine the evidence/material on record and thereafter, arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had committed an offence, for which he could be tried alongwith the already arraigned accused and upon appraisal of the material on record, the Court was hopeful that there was a reasonable prospect of the case against the newly added accused ending in conviction. The power to summon an accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and not on mere demand. Reliance for the above contention is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as Michael Machado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 75 and a judgment of this Court reported as Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 359.