Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashThe contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the
core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-
complainant Rakesh Kumar (for brevity ""the complainant""), a criminal case was registered against accused Jagdish son of Ganpat, Sumit, Ram
Chander sons of, Nirmala wife of, Jagdish and Brahm Parkash son of Nityanand, vide FIR No. 240 dated 13.11.2010 (Annexure P1) on
accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of
Police Station Narnaul. During the course of investigation of the case, accused Nirmala Devi and Brahm Parkash were found innocent. However,
after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C. against the remaining three
accused. They were accordingly charge sheeted for the commission of indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
2. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges against the accused, examined PW 1 complainant Rakesh Kumar, who made his statement
(Annexure P6). As soon as his examination-in-chief was recorded, in the meantime, the prosecution moved an application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. to
summon Nirmala Devi and Brahm Parkash respondents as additional accused to face the trial along with their other co-accused.
3. The trial Judge dismissed the application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C., by way of impugned order dated 7.7.2011.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of
section 401 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply,
to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
6. As is clear that the trial Judge has dismissed the application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution, by means of impugned order, which, in
substance, is as under (Para 4):-
In his original complaint Ex. PA dated 13.11.2010 as well as in the capacity as PW 1 in the court, the complainant has asserted that the accused
Braham Prakash while chasing him had trespassed into his house and then struck a kulhari blow at his back but the perusal of the MLR of the
complainant Rakesh Kumar clearly shows that the suffering of the abovesaid injury by the complainant on his back with blunt or sharp edged
weapon has not been mentioned anywhere.
Similarly, the complainant Rakesh Kumar in his original complaint as well as in the capacity of PW 1 in the court has stated that the accused
Nirmala having a jaily in her hands had caused a jaily blow on his left hand but again the suffering of the aforesaid injury on the person of the
complainant ha snot been mentioned anywhere in his MLR placed on the record of this file.
Therefore, in these circumstances, the active participation of the aforesaid two accused and the attribution of specific injuries to them by the
complainant cannot be held worth of according any credence that too especially in the circumstances when it is already a well settled proposition of
law that the trial court stands burdened with a heavy responsibility to ensure at the time of dealing with an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. that the
evidence which has come on record is quality evidence and not merely an allegation on the basis of which such a summoning can be made and
there should be sufficient evidence to suggest involvement and the commission of offence by the persons sought to be summoned. This court is
supported its view aforesaid from the ratio of law laid down in the citation i.e Ganesha Vs. State of Haryana and Another, wherein the Hon''ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court expressed the similar views.
7. In other words, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the inherent contradictions in the ocular version contained in the FIR, statement
(Annexure P6) of PW 1 complainant and the medical evidence, has examined the matter in the right perspective and correctly did not summon the
respondents as additional accused to face the trial along with their other co-accused. The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any
reason, much less cogent, to interfere in the impugned order in this respect.
8. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from entirely a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the trial Judge, while
acquitting accused Sumit Kumar, convicted & sentenced accused Ram Chander and Jagdish for the commission of offences punishable under
sections 307 and 325 read with section 34 IPC, by virtue of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.2.2012. In this manner, the
main case already stands concluded. The contention of learned counsel for respondents that since the main trial has already concluded and cause
of action u/s 319 Cr.P.C. does not survive, so, the matter becomes infructuous, has considerable force. On the contrary, the argument of learned
counsel for petitioner-complainant that the conclusion of main trial, has got no bearing on the decision of the present petition, is neither tenable nor
the observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, are at all applicable to the facts of the instant
case, wherein, the additional accused were stood already summoned u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. before the conclusion of the trial. On the peculiar facts & in
the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that the fact that trial of co-accused had concluded and co-accused was acquitted, cannot
have the effect of nullifying the order of summoning of the additional accused u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the
aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of petitioner-complainant in the present controversy.
9. As is evident from the record that in the instant case, the application filed by the prosecution/complainant u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the
trial Court, vide impugned order. That means, no order to summon the respondents as additional accused was passed by the Court before
conclusion of the trial of main case. Once, no such order for summoning the respondents as additional accused was passed before the conclusion
of the trial of main case, in that eventuality, the aforesaid observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court are not at all attracted to the facts of the present
case, particularly when section 319 Cr.P.C. postulates that ""where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the
court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed."" The words ""in the course of trial"" are most important
and carry a significant meaning in this relevant connection. In this manner, the course (pendency) of the trial is a condition precedence for
summoning the additional accused u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. and not otherwise. No person can legally be summoned as an additional accused to face the
trial along with other co-accused under this section after the conclusion of the trial of main case. Therefore, the contrary submissions of learned
counsel for petitioner-complainant ""stricto sensu"" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.
10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot
possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same is illegal,
perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-
complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid
reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
