Joga Ram vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh, J.—The present revision petition u/s 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 23.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, vide which the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner-complainant, through Public Prosecutor, to summon Sarwan Singh @ Bholu, Geja Ram son of Piara Lal and Meeto wife of Geja Ram, as additional accused to stand trial in case FIR No. 187 dated 30.11.2007 under Sections 363-A, 366 IPC, PS Sadar Nawanshahar, was dismissed.

Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that Sukhwinder Kaur-minor daughter of the complainant/petitioner was allegedly missing from her home since 27.11.2007. After making efforts to search his missing daughter-Sukhwinder Kaur, complainant allegedly lodged a complainant with police including SSP Nawanshar whereupon FIR No. 187 dated 30.11.2007 under Sections 363-A and 366 IPC came to be registered against Harjinder Lal @ Babbu son Gej Ram. During trial in the aforesaid FIR, statements of petitioner as well as prosecutrix-Sukhwinder Kaur were recorded and they were cross examined, in which they allegedly named the accused persons and the role played by them in the kidnapping of prosecutrix. Thereafter, petitioner, through Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the accused who were not challaned. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 23.8.2010. Hence the present revision petition.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts and circumstances available on the file and thus the same is liable to be set aside being arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice and to the prejudice of the complainant as well as the prosecutrix.

After hearing the learned Counsel and going through the impugned order, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

The learned trial Court while dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has found that in his statement Ex.PJ, the complainant/petitioner had not named the accused persons Sarwan Singh @ Bholu, Geja Ram son of Piara Lal and Meeto wife of Geja Ram. Similarly, prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not named the aforesaid accused persons. It was further found that both the witnesses, except for the application Mark-A, for the first time had named the accused persons in their statement recorded in the Court. As regards the application Mark-A, it was found that nothing could be deduced from a perusal of the same as to whether it was at all received in any office or was prepared later on. Thus, it was held that naming of the accused persons in their statements was nothing but a major improvement in their earlier versions given to the police and hence the same were disbelieved by the learned trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or perversity in the opinion formed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of material available on record which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional powers of this Court u/s 401 Cr.P.C.

Dismissed.