Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) - Crl. Misc. No. 4042 of 2016 This application has been filed for placing on record Annexure P-4. Application is allowed and Annexure P-4 is taken on record. Crl. Revn. No. 329 of 2016
(2.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge impugned order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide which, an application moved by the petitioner/complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint made by complainant-Smt. Sushil Soni, FIR No. 67 dated 4.3.2015 was registered under Sections 376,384,506 IPC at Police Station, Ambala City. Challan was presented against accused-Manoj Kumar @ Rinku but respondents No.2 to 4 were found innocent and were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Thereafter, the complainant while appearing as PW-7 in the Court levelled specific allegations against respondents No.2 to 4 as a result of which an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 to 4 as an additional accused to face trial along with the main accused was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide its order dated 23.10.2015, which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents No.2 to 4 were wrongly declared innocent during investigation, whereas, specific allegations were levelled against them. The prosecutrix while appearing as PW-7 in the Court specifically stated that respondent No.2- Kiran, the wife of main accused-Manoj Kumar @ Rinku, in connivance with each other not only blackmailed her but even received jewellery from her by giving threats to disclose her obscene video and photographs. Respondent No.2 was also named in the FIR but intentionally she was not challaned by the investigating agency. The prosecutrix also made a statement that respondent No.4-Dinesh had forged enteries in the visiting register of Hotel Plaza with an intention to aid accused-Manoj Kumar @ Rinku in commission of rape upon the complainant. Similar allegations of blackmailing and giving threat were also levelled against respondent No.3- mother of main acused-Manoj Kumar @ Rinku. He further submits that specific roles were attributed to respondents No. 2 to 4 by complainant (PW-7) but still the application has been dismissed. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the statement of the prosecutrix. The summoning Court has not appreciated the fact that as per the medical evidence and statements of PWs, sufficient evidence was available against respondents No. 2 and 4 and there was every likelihood of their conviction along with the main accused. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 384 : 2014 (3) SCC 92 , in support of his contentions.;