High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Moti Ram Verma vs State Of Haryana & Others on 22 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Moti Ram Verma vs State Of Haryana & Others on 22 January, 2009
Crl. Misc. No. M-762 of 2009                    1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

                        Crl. Misc. No. M-762 of 2009
                        Date of decision: January 22, 2009


Moti Ram Verma                     ---     Petitioner


            Versus

State of Haryana & others          ----    Respondents
Before:     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:    Mr. HS Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Rajan Gupta, J (Oral).


In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner

has impugned orders Annexures P3 & P4 dated 7-8-2008 and

18-11-2008 respectively, whereby his application under Section 319

Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused was dismissed.

A case under Sections 323,341,506,34 IPC was

registered for an assault on the petitioner while he was having a walk

after dinner on 12.9.2004.

Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was conducted and

challan was submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction. The

main accused Nafe Singh,named initially by the petitioner is facing

trial before the court below.

An application was, however, moved by the prosecution
Crl. Misc. No. M-762 of 2009 2

under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused on the

basis of the statement of the complainant. The said application was

rejected by the trial court on the ground on the ground that the

complainant was neither able to disclose the names of the additional

accused at the time his statement was initially recorded, nor anything

connecting those accused with the alleged incident emerged during

the investigation. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the plea to

summon the additional accused on the ground that it was

unacceptable that the complainant had come to know the identity of

the additional accused at a later stage.

Thereafter complainant preferred a revision petition,

which was also dismissed by the revisional court observing that there

was complete lack of acceptable evidence to summon additional

accused, respondents No. 2 to 4 herein.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of

the clear cut statement of the complainant, additional accused ought

to have been summoned by the Court below. He thus impugns the

orders, Annexures P3 & P4 on the ground that the same have been

passed without appreciation of facts of the case and law governing

Section 319 Cr.P.C.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the

considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the

impugned orders passed by the Courts below. It appears that the

petitioner has merely improved his version later on. Even if the
Crl. Misc. No. M-762 of 2009 3

petitioner suspects that respondents No. 2 to 4 had accompanied the

main accused Naffe Singh, who had allegedly attacked him, the

same cannot be sufficient ground for summoning them. Mere

suspicion in the mind of the complainant is not sufficient for

exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the

accused.

In view of the above, no ground to quash the orders,

Annexure P3 & P4 is made out. The instant petition is, therefore,

dismissed.

[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
January 22, 2009.

`ask’