DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed for setting - aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur, has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as mentioned in the revision petition are that FIR No.25 dated 03.03.2013 was registered under Sections 304 -B and 201 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sadar, Nabha. Challan was presented against Darshan Singh (Father -in -law), Surinder Pal Singh @ Shinderpal Singh (Husband), Bhinder Kaur (Mother -in -law). Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Subsequently, on recording statement of complainant -Nachattar Singh while appearing as PW1 before the Court mentioned that said two persons were also involved in commission of offence. Thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 of the Code for summoning Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur. Said application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 10.07.2014. Now the present revision petition has been filed to challenge order dated 10.07.2014 by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been dismissed without taking into consideration the statement of complainant and role played by the persons sought to be summoned. The daughter of petitioner was murdered by all the accused and then she was thrown in the Canal making it look like a suicide. Learned counsel also submits that specific role of said persons sought to be summoned was mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Police and same has been mentioned in the statement of complainant recorded before the trial Court. Initially, they were declared innocent in the investigation inspite of their active participation. Subsequently, application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused impugned order and other documents available on the file including statement of complainant -Nachattar Singh. Admittedly, both the persons sought to be summoned were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning these two persons to face trial along with other accused, who are already facing trial.
(3.) FOR facilitation, Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: - "319.Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. - (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub -section (1), then - (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re - heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." ;