JUDGMENT
K.S. Garewal, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Gurgaon dated September 7, 1995. The impugned order was passed in case entitled State v. Pappu @ Mukesh and others, which had been registered on the basis of FIR No. 86/94 under Sections 323, 324, 235, 34 IPC at Police Station F. Nagar. The occurrence had taken place on September 2,1994, in which Ram Chander complainant had been allegedly belaboured by Pappu, Bhimu and Nahar Singh and also by Jagan and Mehar. After investigation the police sent up only Pappu, Bhimu and Nahar Singh for trial while Jagan and Mehar were placed in column 2. This had led to the complainant making an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for summoning Jagan and Mehra, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on April 22, 1995 observing that Jagan and Nahar could be summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. after some evidence came on record against them. Consequently, Ram Chander’s statement was partly recorded on August 2, 1995, wherein he had specifically stated that injuries by a kasia was inflicted by Jagan and injuries with a lathi were inflicted by Mehar. The learned Magistrate exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. summoned Jagan and Mehar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the statement of Ram Chander was not evidence in as much as he had not been subjected to cross- examination by the accused, who were present before the learned Magistrate. Since there was no evidence because no cross-examination had been conducted, the petitioners could not have been summoned.
3. He has placed reliance on Amarjit Singh alias Amba v. Slate of Punjab and another, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Journal 653 and La/pat Rai v. The State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 44.
4. On behalf of the complainant learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court on
Chanan v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 371, wherein it is held that if a person is summoned under Section 319, Cf.P.C. on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness, the order is a valid order and calls for no interference.
5. It goes without saying that what Ram Chander had stated in his examination-in-chief was his statement on oath before a Court of law. It is true that the statement had not been challenged by the accused present before that court because the witness had not been offered for cross-examination as the complainant presented an application to summon the petitioners under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could have, at that very stage, deferred decision on the paid application and allowed the statement to be completed and taken up the application after the statement was completed and witness subjected to cross-examination. Indeed, that may have been the proper course of action, but in failing to do so, no illegality has been committed. By accepting the petition and by setting aside the impugned order, the power of the trial Court to again summon the petitioners could not be permanently curtailed because after the cross-examination of the witness, the complainant would be able to re-file the application and pray for summoning the accused petitioners. In each of the authorities, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had set aside the impugned order, but left the option open for the trial Court to again hear an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., if filed after the cross-examination had been completed.
6. The trial of this case has already been delayed beyond reasonable limits. The case has been pending in this Court for the last si\ years and no progress has been made before the trial Court even though the trial was stayed qua the petitioners only. For practical purposes this limited stay has actually operated as a complete stay of the further proceedings. In case the contention of the petitioners is accepted, the complainant would still be able to avail an opportunity to file the application after the cross-examination has been completed. That would lead to further delay. In the interest of justice and particularly in the interest of speedy trial, this revision must be dismissed. It is held that the statement of the witness being on oath and recorded before the trying Magistrate was sufficient, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, to enable the Magistrate to summon the petitioners for trial with the accused.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed.
8. Revision dismissed.