Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) NOTICE of Motion.
(2.) MR . Himanshu Rai, A.A.G. Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the State. Two fold prayer has been made by the petitioner in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Firstly, he has sought quashing of order dated 18.1.2007 by dint of which, on an application moved by the State, the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial in case FIR No. 13 dated 27.2.2004, under Sections 302, 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kalyat and secondly he has laid challenge to the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in the aforesaid case, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and have gone through the paper -book carefully. The Court while resorting to the provisions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is exercising extra ordinary power conferred upon it, which is to be used sparingly and only when the compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other person against whom action has not been taken. Reasonable satisfaction to be based on the material on record and must be discernible. However, the impugned order does not indicative of the fact as to what was the material with the court below, on the basis of which it was opined to summon the accused -petitioner. The impugned order dated 18.1.2007 is not only a cryptic one but non -speaking as well. Thus, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside. It is directed that the trial court shall pass orders afresh on the application filed by the State under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused, without influenced by any observation made in this order. So far as the other prayer of the petitioner with regard to order dated 15.2.2008 is concerned, the same stands redundant since it is an outcome of the order dated 18.1.2007, which has now been set aside.;