Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl. Rev. No. 1589 of 2001 filed by Jarnail Singh and Crl. Rev. No. 1681 of 2001 filed by Inderjit Singh and 3 others) to challenge the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal dated October 8, 2001 whereby Jarnail Singh, petitioner herein along with Surjit Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurcharan Singh alias Pappu, Inderjit Singh alias Kala Singh were summoned by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial along with Bhira Singh and Mohabbat Singh under sections 302/307/148/149 I.P.C. for the murder of Gurcharan Singh. 2. The facts of the case as set out in the complaint filed by Joga Singh were that on October 8, 1998 at about 10/11 P.M. he along with his brother Baljinder Singh were ploughing the disputed land while their father was also present in the field; Sumer Chand and Lakhwinder Singh were present nearby. The accused arrived there. They were variously armed and tried to stop the complainant and his brother from ploughing the land by standing in front of their tractors. The accused were identified in the lights of the tractors. Gurcharan Singh deceased tried to pacify them but Surjit Singh raised a lalkara leading to Gurcharan Singh alias Pappu firing a shot at Baljinder Singh which hit him on his right arm and flank. A second shot was fired which hit the deceased who fell down and died. Sumer Chand was also hit by a shot fired by Satnam Singh. 3. The complainant further stated that he and his brother went to the Police Station but they found the accused already present with the Police. Therefore, the police did not listen to them. When they went to the hospital, the Medical Officer refused to conduct the Medical Examination by saying that it was a police case and Medical examination could only be conducted at the instance of the police. Later medical examination of Baljinder Singh was conducted on October 9, 1998 after an order was obtained from the court. Sumer Chand was medically examined after 3 days. Complainant then went on to state that the police was under the influence of the accused and, with a view to help them registered a false case against the complainant party under sections 302/147/148/447 I.P.C. on October 9, 1998 on the basis of the statement of Mohabbat Singh. Sumer Chand was medically examined after 3 days. Complainant then went on to state that the police was under the influence of the accused and, with a view to help them registered a false case against the complainant party under sections 302/147/148/447 I.P.C. on October 9, 1998 on the basis of the statement of Mohabbat Singh. However, on October 14, 1998 a case was registered against Surjit Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Inderjit Singh and Jarnail Singh under sections 302/307 I.P.C. whereas a case under Sections 147/148/427 I.P.C. was registered against the complainant party. The police did not challan Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. Therefore, a complaint was filed by Joga Singh on November 27, 1998 against Surjit Singh and six others (the five against whom the FIR had been registered and the two who had been left out). 4. On July 21, 1999 the complainant stated before the learned Magistrate that he did not wish to pursue the complaint against Surjit Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Inder Singh and Jarnail Singh as they had already been charged by the police under Sections 302 etc. I.P.C. but Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh had not been so charged. Therefore, the learned Magistrate directed that only Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh be summoned under Section 302 I.P.C. Consequently, the complaint case was committed to the Court of Sessions only against Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised jurisdiction under section Cr.P.C. and directed that petitioners in these two petitions be also summoned to stand trial under sections 302/307/148/149 I.P.C. The main ground of challenge is that the petitioners were already facing trial for the murder of Gurcharan Singh on the basis of the police report. The petitioners were not summoned to stand trial by the learned Magistrate but issued process against Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. Therefore, the petitioners could not be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. once they have been given up as accused in the complainant case even though simultaneously they were the accused in the police case. 6. The question to be determined is whether the petitioners, who were accused in the police case in respect of the occurrence with regard to which the complainant had instituted a complaint can be summoned as accused in the complaint case by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. 6. The question to be determined is whether the petitioners, who were accused in the police case in respect of the occurrence with regard to which the complainant had instituted a complaint can be summoned as accused in the complaint case by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon Sohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Criminal Law Journal 2302. In this case F.I.R. was registered against some persons under Sections 427, 335, 325, 323, 149 I.P.C. The charge was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate who was pleased to discharge two accused and against the remaining three charge was framed under section 427 I.P.C. Later an application was filed for alteration of the charge and addition of other sections. The learned Magistrate resorted to the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. read with Section 319 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence under the remaining sections and ordered that the accused who had been earlier discharged should also be summoned. The Honble Supreme Court of India held that once a person is found to have been the accused in the case he goes out of the reach of Section 319 and the accused who had been discharged under the relevant provisions of the Code could not be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. 8. Reliance was also placed on Uma Shankar Sahay v. State of Bihar and another, 1998 Criminal Law Journal 2807 (a Single Bench decision of Patna High Court). In this case three persons were named as accused and the inquiry as envisaged by Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted. The learned Magistrate examined three witnesses. On the perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the documents, the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence only against two and not the third accused. The court held that if a person had figured as accused at any stage he went out of reach of Section 319 Cr.P.C. In this case the third person against whom cognizance was not taken was nevertheless an accused from the very beginning of the institution of the complaint. As such it could not be said that the third person could be described as "any person not being an accused" so as to warrant the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. On behalf of the counsel for the complainant reference was made to Dr. As such it could not be said that the third person could be described as "any person not being an accused" so as to warrant the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. On behalf of the counsel for the complainant reference was made to Dr. S.S. Khanna v. Chief Secretary Patna and another, 1983(2) RCR (Criminal) 508 (SC) : 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 562. The facts of this case were that a complaint had been filed before a Magistrate against the Security Officer and a Director of the Institute by the General Secretary of the Employees Association for commission of offence under Sections 323/504 and 323/506 I.P.C. respectively as a consequence of a labour dispute. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and of some witnesses but declined to issue process against the Director and issued process only against the Security Officer. However, while proceeding against the Security Officer, the Magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence against the Director regarding the alleged offences and allowed the complaint application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. A revision was filed by the summoned accused, it was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal before the Honble Supreme Court it was held that a person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it has been decided to issue process against him. Even if that person participates in the proceedings under section 202 Cr.P.C. he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. Therefore, there was no legal bar to summon a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even after the complaint against him had been dismissed. 10. The above question was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who elected to rely upon Karan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 579 in preference to Uma Shankar (supra) and decided to summon the petitioners as accused to face trial. 11. It is usually said that each case has its own peculiar facts. This case is no exception. The petitioners are already facing trial on the basis of a police report. However, Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh are not among the accused in the police case. The complainant had filed the complaint case against the five accused in the police case (the petitioners in these two petitions) and also against Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. The petitioners are already facing trial on the basis of a police report. However, Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh are not among the accused in the police case. The complainant had filed the complaint case against the five accused in the police case (the petitioners in these two petitions) and also against Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. Both the police case and complaint case are now before the trial Court and must necessarily be decided together. It is obvious that the two versions are different and in the complaint case Mohabbat Singh and Bhira have also been arrayed as accused. The complainant himself faces a cross case along with some others under sections 447, 427, 148, 149 I.P.C. The cross case would also necessarily be decided at the same time. 12. If one is to closely examine the reasons which compelled the prosecution to seek the trial of the petitioners along with Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh it would become clear that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly valid. The five petitioners had been charge-sheeted and sent up for trial on the basis of the police report and for this reason the complainant gave them up as accused. The complainant evidence before the Magistrate did reveal that Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh had formed an unlawful assembly with the present petitioners and in pursuance of their common object committed the murder of Gurcharan Singh and attempted murder of Sumer Chand and Baljinder Singh. The learned Magistrate had not issued any process against the petitioners but summoned only Mohabbat Singh and Bhira Singh. The dropping of the petitioners by the complainant and process not being issued against them by the Magistrate, would not take the petitioners out of reach of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The decision of the Magistrate was not on merits at all, indeed there was evidence that the petitioners were members of the unlawful assembly. The two accused in Sohan Lals case had been discharged under a particular section but when other sections were sought to be introduced the two discharged accused were also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. That order was found to be invalid and rightly held so because three accused were charged only under Section 427 I.P.C. the charges levelled against the accused had been considered and rejected with regard to all offences. This is the distinguishing feature between Sohan Lals case and the present case. Similarly, the decision in the Uma Shankar Sahay case appeared to be contrary to what was held in Dr. S.S. Khannas case. The latter decision of the Honble Supreme Court must be preferred as precedent. 13. As a result of the above discussion, these petitions are found to be without merit and same are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.