MANDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing of order dated 4.1.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in case FIR No. 33 dated 30.7.2015 registered under Sections 376,366,354-D and 506 Penal Code at Police Station Ghuman Kalan, District Gurdaspur, whereby, the application moved by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 as an additional accused has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, aforesaid FIR was registered against accused- Kulwinder Singh and respondents No.2 and 3 but final report under section 173 Crimial P.C. was filed against accused-Kulwinder Singh only and respondents No.2 and 3 were declared innocent and were kept in column No.2. The charges were framed against Kulwinder Singh only. The statement of the complainant was recorded before the trial Court and thereafter an application was moved under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for summoning respondent No.2 and 3 as an additional accused. The said application was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 4.1.2016, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents No.2 and 3 were wrongly declared innocent, whereas, there were specific allegations against them. They were also involved in the commission of offence as they facilitated the main accused to commit the offence. Not only their names were mentioned in the FIR but specific role was also attributed to them in the statement of the complainant recorded before the trial Court. There was sufficient evidence available on record to summon respondents No.2 and 3 as an additional accused to face trial. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Honourable the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 623 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 384 : 2014 (3) SCC 92, in support of his contentions.