Vikramjeet Singh vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No. 124 dated 8.5.2011 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 and 459 IPC by the police of Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. Although Paramjeet Kaur mentioned the name of petitioner-accused Vikramjeet Singh in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., but the police did not challan him and after completion of the investigation, it submitted the final police report (challan) against the other accused. They were accordingly charge sheeted on accusation of having committed the indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, inter-alia, examined PW4 Paramjeet Kaur injured, who has testified that on the intervening night of 7/8.5.2011, she and her husband had received injuries at the hands of the accused. She has specifically identified petitioner Vikramjeet alias Vicky son of Om Parkash, as one of the assailants. Consequently, the prosecution moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as additional accused.

Sequelly, the trial Judge accepted the application and summoned the petitioner as additional accused to face the trial along with his other main accused, vide impugned order dated 5.5.2012.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

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.

Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR and since there is no cogent evidence on record against him, so, the trial Judge committed a legal mistake to summon him as an additional accused, are neither tenable nor the observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Anil Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that "the Court while issuing the process should arrive at reasonable satisfaction that prosecution would be able to prove charges against whom the process is sought to be issued." There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy.

As is evident from the record that Paramjeet Kaur (PW4) injured witness, has named the petitioner in her initial statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., involving him in the commission of heinous offences. Not only that, Paramjeet Kaur, injured witness, while appearing as PW4 in the Court has, inter-alia, categorically maintained that on the intervening night of 7/8.5.2011 around 2.00 a.m., having heard noise she woke up and saw that four/five boys, armed with dandas and iron pipes, were inflicting injuries to her husband and when she tried to save her husband, they had also attacked upon her. She further stated that Vikramjeet alias Vicky was also present among those assailants and he was well known to her as he used to visit Gurudwara for the last five years to meet Head Granthi Gurdev Singh.

Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence on record and the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in cases Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and Purushottam @ Pichharu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the trial Court has examined the matter in right perspective and correctly summoned the petitioner as additional accused, by means of impugned order, which, in substance, is as under (para 5):-

As a sequel to above said discussion and for the foregoing reasons, prima-facie, it appears from the testimony of PW-4 Paramjeet Kaur, injured, coupled with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., that Vikramjeet alias Vicky along with co-accused on the intervening night of 7/8.5.2011, having committed house breaking and caused injuries to PW-4 Paramjeet Kaur and her husband Harpreet Singh, committed theft of their valuable belongings, thus, Vikramjeet alias Vicky son of Om Parkash, resident of village Mohanpur be summoned as accused to face trial along with co-accused under Sections 380 and 459 IPC. Consequently, this application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is allowed accordingly.

The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any reason, muchless cogent, to assail the impugned order. Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court 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, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

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 and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the present revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition in this relevant direction.