Alok Singh, J. - (1.) COMPLAINANT has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the Petitioner to summon Deepak Taneja as co -accused/additional accused was dismissed.
(2.) RECORD reveals that initially Petitioner has named Vijay Taneja and one another in the FIR. Now, during the trial, Petitioner has developed his case by stating that another person with main accused Vijay Taneja was his real brother Deepak Taneja. Learned trial Court having observed that statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence, rejected the application moved under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. Now this is no more res integra that power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised with great caution and very sparingly only when Court finds that if entire material/evidence available on the file stands unrebutted would lead to the conviction of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused.
(3.) IT is highly improbable to believe that Petitioner has named Vijay Taneja in the FIR and has not named his real brother Deepak Taneja. Tendency to rope in all the family members cannot be ruled out.;