NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE of Motion.

(2.) MR . Himanshu Rai, A.A.G. Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and have gone through the paper -book carefully. The Court while resorting to the provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is exercising extra ordinary power conferred upon it, which is to be used sparingly and only when the compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other person against whom action has not been taken. Reasonable satisfaction to be based on the material on record and must be discernible. However, the impugned order does not indicative of the fact as to what was the material with the court below, on the basis of which it was opined to summon the accused -petitioner. The impugned order dated 18.1.2007 is not only a cryptic one but non -speaking as well. Thus, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. It is directed that the trial court shall pass orders afresh on the application filed by the State under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused, without influenced by any observation made in this order. So far as the other prayer of the petitioner with regard to order dated 15.2.2008 is concerned, the same stands redundant since it is an outcome of the order dated 18.1.2007, which has now been set aside.