POOJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant petition, the Petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, opting to summon the Petitioner as an additional accused to face trial alongwith the other accused against whom the case had been committed to the trial Court under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure The name of Petitioner was neither mentioned in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure nor any evidence was produced in the Court before the application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence has been produced on the record after framing of charges. The trial Court has summoned the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations levelled against her and the other accused are similar as such she is to be treated at par with other accused facing trial under Section 306/120 -B IPC.

(2.) THE State counsel and the counsel for the complainant have contended that no doubt the name of the Petitioner is not mentioned in column No. 2 but the trial Court has got jurisdiction on the basis of even the documents which were part of the report under Section 173 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure to summon an additional accused. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the High Court in Jagjiwan Singh Gill and Anr. v. State of Punjab,, 1983(2) RCR (Crl.) 158, wherein the accused named in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was summoned holding that recording of evidence prior to summoning the accused is not necessary and that accused can show that there were no grounds to proceed against him. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon a judgment of Rakesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana,, 2001(3)RCR (Criminal) 681 to contend that the word evidence in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure should be used in comprehensive and broad sense which would include the material collected by the investigating officer and the material or evidence which comes before the Court and from which the Court can prima facie conclude that person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of crime.

(3.) PETITION is allowed. The impugned order dated January 29, 2007 (annexure P -1) is set aside. This order will not debar the prosecution agency to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in case it deems appropriate at an opportune time.