- (1.) Amrik Singh, the petitioner by way of Criminal Revision No. 2536 of 2010 and Sukhraj Singh and Bhagwant Singh by way of Criminal Revision No. 3401 of 2010 have challenged the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Sukhwinder Kaur lodged FIR No. 141 dated 24.7.2006 at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana with the following allegations: The complainant is married with Kulwant Singh, who has a dispute with his father and brothers with regard to land. Their house is also joint. At about 6.30 PM, on 23.07.2006, a day prior to the lodging of the FIR, Amrik Singh, a neighbour of the complainant came to the house of Balwant Singh, elder brother of the husband of the complainant. Five minutes thereafter, Amrik Singh alongwith Balwant Singh came out. They were accompanied by Sukhraj Singh, the elder brother and Bhagwant Singh, the younger brother of her husband and they started abusing her. The complainant told them that the dispute is between the brothers and that they should settle it among themselves. On her saying so, Sukhraj Singh and Bhagwant Singh caught hold of her from her arms and Balwant Singh had hit her on her head with a brick, which was in his hand. She raised alarm which attracted Hardev Kaur, her mother-in-law. Then Sukhraj Singh ran and picked up a kassi (spade). Amrik Singh kept on abusing and watching the occurrence while standing, while Sukhraj Singh tried to give a blow with kassi to the husband of the complainant. The other persons intervened and dissuaded him from doing so.
(2.) After due investigation, the police filed challan against Balwant Singh. After framing of charge, Sukhwinder Kaur, the complainant was examined as PW-1 and after recording of her statement, the prosecution applied under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Sukhraj Singh, Bhagwant Singh and Amrik Singh as accused to stand trial along with Balwant Singh. This application has been allowed vide order dated 3.8.2010 vide which all the three have been summoned to stand trial.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Rampal, learned counsel representing Amrik Singh has taken me through the statement of Sukhwinder Singh recorded as PW-1. According to him, this statement is contrary to what is stated by Sukhwinder Kaur, the complainant in her statement made before the police. He has further submitted that the dispute was between the brothers and Amrik Singh is the neighbour who had nothing to do with any of the parties involved in the scuffle. He has further submitted that the impugned order is also very small in which learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded his satisfaction, which is required under section 319 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly and only when the court concerned is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 2 RCR(Cri) 200, where it is laid down as under :- ". . . This Court has, time and again, declared that the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence. The words "it appears" are not to be read lightly. In that the court would have to be circumspect while exercising this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of the Section demands.";