Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in revision affirming the order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Churu in Case No.67/2012 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for adding certain additional persons as accused and summoning them to face trial was rejected.
(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders.
(3.) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in 2013(3) RLW 2550/2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 787, the trial court, at any stage after filing of the charge-sheet, has the power to summon the accused left out by the Investigating Officer to face trial if evidence collected by the Investigating Officer establishes their involvement in the incident. The learned revisional court resorting to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. held that the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for summoning additional accused if facts so warranted after recording of evidence. However, in the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the subordinate courts is not justified. The trial court should have applied its mind properly and passed a reasoned order on the material collected by the Investigating Officer so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the Investigating Officer was justified in leaving out certain persons from the array of accused while filing charge-sheet. The view taken by the revisional court is not in consonance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal (supra).;