TAHIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of CrPC, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 22/06/2017 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Sheopur in Special Sessions Trial No.19/2016, by which the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 of CrPC, 1973 for summoning the applicant as an additional accused, has been allowed.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant had lodged the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons, alleging that he was beaten by the applicant and other coaccused persons and was also humiliated by calling him by his caste name. The police after investigating the matter, filed charge sheet against the co-accused Santosh Gupta and Chanda @ Chandraprakash Sharma but did not file charge sheet against the present applicant. During trial, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, in which it was specifically alleged by the complainant Ghandhi Dharshan Vairwa and Meghraj that the applicant had also come along with the co-accused persons and the complainant Ghandhi Dharsahan Vairwa was beaten by the applicant and other two co-accused persons and he was further humiliated by calling him by his caste name. Babu Singh (PW8) is a police personnel, who had recorded the FIR. He has specifically admitted that the FIR was registered against the applicant and other two co-accused persons in Crime No. 337/2015. The prosecution had filed an application under section 319 of CrPC, 1973 for summoning the applicant as an additional accused and the trial Court by order dated 22/06/2017 after considering the material which was collected by the police during investigation as well as considering the FIR and the evidence which has come on record against the applicant, allowed the application and has summoned the applicant as an additional accused.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the trial Court had committed the material irregularity by summoning the applicant as an additional accused because the appreciation of material at the time of framing of charges is different from the appreciation of evidence for summoning a person as an additional accused. Possibility of committing an offence is a criteria for framing charge whereas something more than that possibility is required for summoning a person as an additional accused. In the present case, the police had come to the conclusion that the applicant was not involved in the commission of offence, therefore, the charge sheet was not filed against him.