- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 19-3-2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. Court No. 1, Jalaun at Orai in S. T. No. 112 of 2007, State v. Praveen Kumar, summoning the applicants as accused persons under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE relevant facts, for disposal of this application are that aforesaid S. T. is pending against co-accused Praveen Kumar under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I. P. C. Applicants were named as accused persons in the F. I. R. but no charge-sheet was submitted against them. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against Praveen Kumar only. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and during trial of the case the statement of Km. Poonam Soniya, prosecutrix was recorded as P. W. 2 and in that statement she named accused applicants Mohan Lal, Dinesh Kumar, Raj Kumar and Satish mentioning their respective roles in the incident. THEreafter, the prosecution moved an application for summoning the above accused applicants and that application was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of that order the present accused applicants filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Heard Sri S. R. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. at the stage of admission on merits also and now I am deciding it on merits without calling any counter-affidavit as the point involved is legal one. Learned Counsel for the applicants cited before me a ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shafi v. Mojid. Rafiq, 2007 (58) ACC 254. In this case the trial Court on the basis of examination-in-chief of a witness had summoned the accused appellant under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The order was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order summoning the accused-appellant could not be passed on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witness, but the Court concerned for ascertaining the veracity of the witness should have permitted his cross-examination first and then the Court should have taken a decision as to whether the appellants should be summoned as an accused or not under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
(3.) HE submitted that above the ruling applies with fuli force, to the present case where the Court has summoned the applicants as accused persons, only on the basis of examination-in-chief of Km. Poonam Soniya without her cross-examination. So the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge should be set aside. I agree with his contention. The application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is, therefore, allowed to this extent that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge summoning the applicants as accused persons on the basis of examination- in-chief of Km. Poonam Soniya is set aside. It is, however, directed that the Court below may, after her cross-examination, reconsider the matter of summoning the applicants as accused persons, if so, prayed by the prosecution. The application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is disposed of accordingly subject to above observations. .;