Manak Mohta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.03.09 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.114/2006 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. for proceeding and summoning respondents No.2 to 10, as accused.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 14.01.06 petitioner Likhma Ram gave statement 'Parcha Bayan' at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner before the concerned police officer, wherein it was alleged that he had purchased a 2 plot about 10 to 11 years back, from accused Ram Kishan, after paying an amount of Rs. 9,000/- and he is having possession over the land since its purchase and it is being used by him and his family members. The accused Ram Kishan wanted to get possession over the land by illegal way and in this respect Ram Kishan entered in the plot in the night along with other co-accused persons, namely, Bhani Ram, Dhan Raj, Ridha Ram, Devi Lal, Surja Ram, Punma Ram, Mukh Ram, Mangi Lal, Tola Ram, Kushla Ram, Purkha Ram, Sukh Ram, Ram Pyari , and Pushpa along with two or three other persons and they assaulted him and his family members by dangerous weapon and caused injuries. The petitioner has specifically stated in the 'parcha bayan' that the accused persons assaulted him and his family members to get forceful possession over the plot. An FIR No.16/2006 of this incident was registered at Police Station ,Jam Sar, under sections 307, 323, 341 , 147,148 and 149 IPC against accused persons and investigation started. During the course of investigation , statement of the petitioner and other injured persons were recorded by the investigation agency, in which it was found that some of the accused persons have committed offences against the petitioner and his family members. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against only five accused persons namely, Ram Kishan, Purkha Ram, Kushla Ram, Ram Pyari and Pushpa. Concluding their involvement in commission of crime , thereafter, case was committed to concerned Sessions Judge, where charges were framed. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial and prosecution started evidence. It is revealed from the record that after the recording of the statement of the informant and eye witnesses, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner , before the learned trial court, for proceeding and summoning present respondents No.2 to 10 as accused persons to be impleaded as co-accused. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 25.07.07 observing that there were no grounds for adding and summoning the respondents, further , with liberty to file fresh application , after completion of evidence of investigation officers. Being aggrieved by the said order of learned trial court, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by way of revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.07, with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application, after completion of evidence of investigation officers, as was directed by learned trial court. Further , the petitioner moved again an application, after recording of statements of investigation officers , under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and summoning of respondents No.2 to 10 to be arrayed as accused persons in the same trial. The learned trial court, vide its order dated 24.03.099, dismissed the application stating therein that there are no sufficient material to proceed and summon them along with present accused. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner has preferred this revision. Notice of this revision was issued to respondents , record of the case was perused and arguments were heard.
(3.) During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and has erroneously passed the impugned order, that is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during trial of the case, the prosecution witnesses have assigned the role played by respondent No. 2 to 10. He drew my attention towards the statements of concerned witnesses and on the strength of evidence , again submitted that there were sufficient grounds for taking cognizance and proceeding against the said respondents. The learned trial court , without proper consideration, much impressed by the statements of the investigation officers, has dismissed the application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. It was also contended that there was no bar for taking proceedings against the respondents while existing earlier order dated 25.07.07 passed by the trial court and order passed by High Court , the learned trial court itself has given opportunity to file application, after recording the statements of the investigation officers. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited judgments given in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, 2006 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 595 : (2006) 10 SCC 192 ; Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy, 2007 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 240 : (2007) 4 SCC 773 ; Rukhsana Khatoon v. Sakhawat Hussain, (2002) 10 SCC 661 ; Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, 2008 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 653 : (2008) 9 SCC 140 , and Girish Yadav v. State of M.P., (1996) 8 SCC 186 in support of his contentions and submitted that at this stage, merit of the case while taking proceeding against the respondents was not to be seen, the involvement in commission of crime was to be considered. Looking from this angle, it was urged that there were ample evidence to proceed against the respondents. The lower court failed to consider the material in its right perspective. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.03.09 deserves to be set aside and the revision may be allowed.;