M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in revision application bearing CRR No. 3238 of 2018 and CRMM No. 55631 of 2018 by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application and quashed and set aside the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein, the original informant has preferred the present appeals.
(2.) As per the case of the appellant herein-original informant, the appellant was attacked by the private respondents herein and other accused persons on 27.07.2016. That the appellant got severely injured. That a FIR was lodged by the appellant herein in which he stated that besides Manjeet Singh, Narvair Singh and other persons namely Palwinder Singh son of Ran Singh, Satkar Singh son of Rajwant Singh, Rajwant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and Sukhdeep Singh son of Satnam Singh had inflicted injuries on his person. It was stated that while he was going in his car - Mahendra XUV-500 for personal work and stopped his car on the left side to answer the phone call, Manjeet Singh son of Mahinder Singh, who was coming in his car from Assandh side and a lady was sitting by his side, stopped his car next to him and after rolling down his window threatened him for having ploughed his barley crop in his capacity as the Sarpanch and while going back home after finishing his work, he found that a car was parked diagonally on the road. The same car was parked in which Manjeet Singh was traveling and when he took out his head to look for the driver, Palwinder Singh son of Ran Singh, Satkar Singh son of Rajwant Singh armed with lathies and were hiding on the right side of road came and attached him and gave lathi blows on the head. Thereafter, 10-12 persons came running towards the car from both sides of the road. It was further stated in the FIR that Manjeet Singh son of Mahinder Singh, Amarjit Singh son of Ran Singh, Rajwant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Narvai Singh son of Tarlok Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of Satnam Singh, residents of Bandrala were holding lathies and Gandasis in their hands. Rajwant Singh came running towards his side and switched off the engine of the car and also opened the door lock of driver side of the car. Manjeet Singh opened the door from outside. Manjeet Singh and Rajwant Singh both dragged him out of the car and Rajwant Singh raised a Lalkara that "today there is an opportunity to kill him". On saying this, Amarjeet Singh, who was armed with Gandasi gave a blow on his head and Manjeet Singh, who was armed with Gandasi gave a blow on his left ear. Then Rajwant Singh who was armed with Gandasi gave blow from its front side. Thereafter, all these persons gave number of blows upon him and he started feeling unconscious and fell on the ground on his knees. He thought that they will kill him today and he was seeing his death in front of his eyes. They he took his revolver from the holster tied around his waist and fired with the same and he did not know to whom and where the shots hit. Those persons started running away upon his firing and while running away, some persons gave blows on his right shoulder and due to which his revolver fell down and those assailants ran away and he also in order to save himself came back towards Adarsh School. He entered the Dera of Chhinna situated near the Adarsh School, where Bhupinder Singh and his father were present, whom he informed that some persons wanted to kill him and kindly take him to Police Station. Thereafter, Bhupinder Singh @ Pinda took him to Assandh on his motor cycle and after sometime he became unconscious, where the doctor gave him first aid and on seeing the seriousness of injuries referred him to General Hospital, Karnal. In the meantime, his family members also reached the Hospital, Assandh took him to General Hospital Karnal in the car and after considering the number of injuries, the doctor referred him to PGI, Chandigarh. That, on the basis of the statement of the appellant, FIR no. 477 of 2016 was lodged for the offences under Sections 148,149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506 IPC. That, thereafter, the DSP, Assandh submitted a report wherein it was found that only four persons were involved in the dispute and the respondents herein who were named were found not to be involved. That, thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against other accused, but not against the private respondents herein. That, thereafter, during the trial the appellant herein came to be examined by the prosecution as P.W.1, who was an injured witness. He named the private respondents herein in his evidence specifically and stood the test of cross-examination. Dr. Mahinder, the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital was also examined as P.W.2. That, thereafter, one Bhupinder Singh who took the injured appellant to the hospital was also examined as P.W.7. That, thereafter, the appellant herein filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 319 CrPC for summoning of the additional accused - private respondents herein on the basis of the evidence recorded. That the learned Trial Court after considering the statements of both - the appellant and other eye witnesses and the material on record allowed the application under Section 319CrPC vide order dated 21.04.2018. The private respondents herein thereafter filed two separate revision petitions against the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning them, before the High Court. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid revision applications, as the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein was not stayed and therefore the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial and after summoning of the additional accused-private respondents herein, 18 witnesses came to have been examined by the learned Trial Court. That, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the revision applications preferred by the private respondents herein and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the additional accused-private respondents herein. Hence, the present appeals.
(3.) Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that when the learned Trial Court, considering the evidence on record, both documentary and oral, allowed the application under Section 319 CrPC summoning the private respondents herein to face the trial, the High Court is not justified in quashing and setting aside the order summoning the private respondents herein. 3.1 It is further submitted that while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein, which was in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC, the High Court has acted beyond the scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC. 3.2 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that in fact the private respondents herein were specifically named in the FIR and thereafter even the names have been disclosed in the evidence of the deposition of the appellant - injured eye witness. It is submitted that therefore the learned Trial Court was justified in summoning the private respondents herein in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. 3.3 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that even the reasons assigned by the High Court while reversing the order passed by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable in law and on facts. 3.4 It is submitted that the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein by observing that there is no evidence except the statement of the appellant herein. It is submitted that however even the accused can be convicted on the basis of the evidence of a single witness and in the present case the appellant is an injured eye witness. It is submitted that the appellant is subjected to cross-examination. It is submitted that therefore merely because there may be one witness and/or statement of only one person, is no ground not to summon the additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. It is further submitted that at this stage the High Court was not justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the appellant on merits. It is submitted that the things which are required to be done during the trial, have been done by the High Court at this stage of summoning the additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. It is submitted that the aforesaid is wholly impermissible at the stage of considering an application under Section 319 CrPC. 3.5 It is further submitted that, by the time, the High Court has passed the impugned judgment and order, as there was no stay in the revision applications, the learned Trial Court proceeded further with the trial and 18 witnesses came to be examined and the trial was at the near end. It is submitted that therefore also, the High Court is not justified in quashing and setting aside a well-reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court summoning the private respondents herein in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC. 3.6 Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and the subsequent decision of this Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2019) 6 SCC 638, in support of his submission that at the stage of considering the application under Section 319 CrPC the High Court was not justified in entering into the merits and/or appreciation of the evidence on merits, which is required to be considered at that stage of trial. It is submitted that as held by this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), the word 'evidence' in Section 319 CrPC has to be broadly understood and not literally as evidence brought during a trial. It is submitted that it is further held that the statement made in examination-in-chief constitutes 'evidence' and the court exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC post commencement of trial, need not wait for evidence against person proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. It is submitted that the degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 should not be more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to conviction of person sought to be added as accused. 3.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions of this Court, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. ;