Sanaulla vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''Cr.P.C.'' for short) challenging the order dated 29.3.2010 whereby application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had been ordered to be summoned to face the trial as an additional accused basing reliance on the statement of the complainant who appeared in the witness box as PW-3. Petitioner was found innocent during investigation. PW-3 had not attributed any specific role to the petitioner at the time of occurrence. Accused Hasin and Jahir Abbas had challenged the impugned order whereby they were also summoned to face the trial as additional accused along with the petitioner and the said petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure P-4). All the persons who had been summoned to face the trial as additional accused had approached this Court vide separate revision petitions. Except accused Khalid, revision petitions filed by the other additional accused were allowed by this Court.

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and others. After investigation of the case, challan was presented against 10 accused. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was found innocent during investigation. During trial, statement of complainant Mujaffar Hussain was recorded as PW-3. Thereafter, prosecution moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner, Abbas, Shaikul, Nauman, Mahender, Hasin, Jahir Abbas, Jakir, Khalid, Sajid, Aarif, Javed and Imtiyaj Ahmed as additional accused. The said application was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.3.2010 and all the persons, sought to be summoned as additional accused, were ordered to be summoned to face the trial as additional accused. Hasin and Jahir Abbas filed Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2010 in this Court challenging the impugned order whereby they were ordered to be summoned to face the trial as additional accused. The said petition was allowed on the ground that the complainant had not attributed any specific role to the said petitioners. Hence, the impugned order qua them was set aside. A perusal of the statement of PW-3 (Annexure P-1) reveals that although the complainant had stated that petitioner along with others was present at the spot but no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1132 of 2010. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.3.2010, qua the petitioner also, is set aside.