MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit and the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein -below.
(2.) AS is evident from the record that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner -complainant Ravinder Kumar son of Mahender Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.101 dated 28.2.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 364, 368, 506 and 120 -B IPC by the police of Police Station City Narnaul.
(3.) DURING the course of investigation of the criminal case, accused Deepak s/o Dolat Ram, Banti alias Rajesh s/o Dharam Pal, Guddu @ Karan s/o Shakti Singh, Anil s/o Raghuvir, Jagmal HC, Dashrat Singh Constable and Kanjod Singh ASI (respondents Nos.2 to 8) respectively, were found innocent and exonerated by the investigating agency. At the same time, after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P1) against main accused Dinesh s/o Nityanand, Narender Yadav @ Nirenjan, Rakesh @ Rakka s/o Jagmal and Dinesh s/o Dolat Ram. They were accordingly charge sheeted for the commission of pointed offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. Sequelly, at the fag end of the trial, the application u/s 319 Cr.PC (Annexure P2) to summon the additional accused respondent Nos.2 to 8 to face the trial along with their other main co -accused, was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 2.12.2014, which, in substance, is as under (para Nos.5 and 6) : - "5. Therefore, I have gone through judicial file from where it comes out that the complainant has filed a complaint in the Court which was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC, to SHO concerned whereupon FIR was registered in this case against the eleven accused persons out of them four are facing trial, however, during the investigation by the police the proposed accused (seven) were kept in column no.2 of final report U/s 173 Cr.PC, by the police. Further, it comes out that applicant/complainant appeared in the witness box and from his testimony, it is evident that he (complainant) is facing prosecution in the FIR no.200 dated 22.05.2014 and FIR no.109 dated 30.03.2014 under Excise Act respectively. Also it is evident from the testimony of complainant that he was working as salesman on the liquor vend of Ramesh Verma contractor. Also it is evident on the file that as per prosecution version the complainant was found possessing liquor for sale in the area of police post Banethi (Rajasthan) and proposed accused are also police officials. Moreover, proposed accused namely Deepak, Banti @ Rajesh, Guddu @ Karan Singh, Anil, HC Jagmal No.457, Ct. Dasrath Singh and ASI Kanjod Singh have not been challaned by police who were not found involved during investigation. 6. So far as the contention of Ld. Counsel for the applicant/complainant that police has not conducted proper investigation is concerned in this regard, it is pointed out that at this stage prima -facie no material is available on the judicial file to draw an interference about the involvement of the proposed accused. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that the additional accused can be summoned only if there is reasonable prospect of their conviction with the accused and since, there is no prima facie material on record against them that would warrant their conviction. Certainly, there cannot be any dispute in the citation relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the applicant/complainant however, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above the citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case which are not identical to the citation." ;