JUDGMENT T.P.S. MANN, J. 1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 17332-M of 2005 filed by Jit Singh and Criminal Misc.No. 25022-M of 2005 filed by Ravinder Singh. 2. The petitioner Jit Singh, in Criminal Misc. No.17322-M of 2005, has challenged the complaint filed by Kamarjit Singh respondent No.2 against the petitioner and others, which was later on clubbed with FIR No. 116 dated 3.10.2002 under Sections 323/427/506/341/34 IPC. Order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib on 18.2.2005 while summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the aforementioned offences, has also been challenged. 3. Initially, the FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Kamarjit Singh, wherein he alleged that Gurdev Singh, Avtar Singh, Bhagwant Singh, Ravinder Singh and 6/7 persons caused injuries to him, Jaspreet Singh and Gurmit Singh on 1.10.2002 at about 9.30 P.M Besides causing injuries, the aforementioned accused broke the front wine screen of the car in which the complainant along with Jaspreet Singh and Gurmit Singh was traveling and going to their village Dedran after visiting a fair at Kalour. 4. During the investigation of the case Ravinder Singh accused was found innocent and placed in column No.2, whereas the challan was presented only against Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh and Avtar Singh. 5. In the meanwhile on 8.10.2002, a complaint was filed by complainant Kamarjit Singh against the aforementioned Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh and Avtar Singh besides Ravinder Singh as well as the present petitioner, namely, Jit Singh. It was alleged that the present petitioner was also the one who was accompanying the four accused at the time of the incident which had taken place on 1.10.2002 at about 9.30 P.M The present complaint was thereafter clubbed with the aforementioned FIR. However, no specific order was passed for summoning any more accused than Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh, Avtar Singh, who were already facing the trial in the FIR. 6. Once the charges were framed against Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh and Avtar Singh, Kamarjit Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW1 and at that point of time he stated about the injuries caused by the accused. It was stated by him that the present petitioner, namely, Jit Singh accused also gave dang blows. 6. Once the charges were framed against Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh and Avtar Singh, Kamarjit Singh was examined by the prosecution as PW1 and at that point of time he stated about the injuries caused by the accused. It was stated by him that the present petitioner, namely, Jit Singh accused also gave dang blows. After the conclusion of the said statement of Kamarjit Singh as PW1, an application was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioner and Ravinder Singh as additional accused to face the trial along with the aforementioned three accused. The prayer of the prosecution was accepted and the petitioner and Ravinder Singh were summoned by the trial Court on 18.2.2005. The said order is under challenge in the present petition and also in that of Ravinder Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Jit Singh has submitted that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR lodged by Kamarjit Singh (Annexure P.2) where only four persons were mentioned as accused namely, Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh, Avtar Singh and Ravinder Singh who along with 6/7 other persons assaulted complainant Kamarjit Singh Jaspreet Singh and Gurmit Singh. However, no attribution was there regarding 6/7 other unidentified persons of causing any injury to any of the injured and it were the named accused only who gave beatings to Kamarjit, Jaspreet and Gurmit Singh. Later on, the petitioner was named as one the accused in the complaint filed by Kamarjit Singh on 8.10.2002 but even in the said complaint, no role was attributed to the petitioner of causing any injury whatsoever to Kamarjit Singh, Jaspreet Singh or Gurmit Singh. It was for the first time that Kamarjit Singh at the time of recording of his statement as PWI before the trial Court, mentioned that the petitioner had given dang blows. As such there was no sufficient evidence available on the file to connect the present petitioner with the crime. Moreover, the type of evidence led by the prosecution to connect the petitioner was not likely to finally end in his conviction and therefore, order passed by the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P .C. while summoning the petitioner Jit Singh deserve to be set aside. 8. Moreover, the type of evidence led by the prosecution to connect the petitioner was not likely to finally end in his conviction and therefore, order passed by the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P .C. while summoning the petitioner Jit Singh deserve to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was specifically named in the complaint and thereafter attributed causing of dang blows, as mentioned in the statement of Kamarjit Singh as PWI recorded by the trial Court and thus, no case was made out for quashing of the complaint as well as setting aside of the summoning order. Moreover, the impugned order of summoning passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could be challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision but the same was not done and instead the present petition was filed under Section 482 Cr..P.C. 9. Perusal of the FIR shows that only four persons were named as accused, namely, Bhagwant Singh, Gurdev Singh, Avtar Singh and Ravinder Singh. Reference was there about 6/7 other persons also but none of them was attributed any role. While filing the complaint, Kamarjit Singh implicated the petitioner Jit Singh also as an accused but he did not attribute any role to him whatsoever in the occurrence. At the third stage i.e. the stage of recording of statement of Kamarjit Singh as PWI, it was for the first time stated that Jit Singh was armed, with a dang with which he had given blows. Thus, there is contradictory and discrepant evidence available on the file regarding the participation of Jit Sigh in the incident in which injuries were caused to Kamarjit Singh, Jaspreet Singh and Gurmit Singh. The complainant kept on improving his case step by step. First of all, he was totally silent about Jit Singh. At the second stage he named Jit Singh as one of the accused without doling out any role to him. Finally Jit Singh was attributed causing of dang blows. With the type of evidence available, there are bleak chances of the conviction of the petitioner. 10. In Pepsi Foods Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1400, Hon’ble Supreme Court sounded a note of caution while passing an order for summoning an accused in a criminal case. With the type of evidence available, there are bleak chances of the conviction of the petitioner. 10. In Pepsi Foods Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1400, Hon’ble Supreme Court sounded a note of caution while passing an order for summoning an accused in a criminal case. It was held as follows: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 11. In Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau Investigation 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 609 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 should be exercised judicially and that evidence should indicate reasonable satisfaction conviction of such other person(s). Further that the Court has the discretion and the power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It was held as under :- “11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage to which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons.” 12. In Pepsi Foods Limited (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere fact that the order under challenge was revisable and instead of filing the revision, the petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was held as under:- “26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate courts. It may not however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate courts. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226 and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution. “ 13. In view of the above, the present petition filed by Jit Singh is accepted and the complaint filed against him is quashed, whereas the order passed on 18.2.2005. while summoning him as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is set aside. 14. Coming to the petition filed by Ravinder Singh accused, it is clear from the perusal of the FIR that he was specifically named as one of the accused in the FIR wherein he was attributed specific role of smashing the front wind screen of the car with the help of a danda. He was similarly referred to in the complaint also filed by Kamarjit Singh on 8.10.2002. Finally, in the statement of Kamarjit Singh as PWl allegations were reiterated against him. There was, thus, consistent evidence available on the file to show that accused Ravinder Singh ought to have been summoned as an additional accused to face trial with the others. Mere fact that he was found innocent during the investigation of the case as the Investigating Officer found him to be present in village Dedran Kalan, District Jalandhar at the place of his posting as an Inspector (Audit), Cooperative Societies on the date of the incident i.e. 1. 10.2002 was no ground not to summon him as an additional accused. Ravinder Singh will be at liberty to prove his plea of alibi at the appropriate stage. For the time being, he cannot be heard saying that he was not present at the place of the incident on the day in question and was in fact present at the place of his posting, which was at a distance of 150 kilometers from the spot. 15. In view of the above, petition (Criminal Misc. No. 17332-M of 2005) filed by Jit Singh petitioner is accepted. 15. In view of the above, petition (Criminal Misc. No. 17332-M of 2005) filed by Jit Singh petitioner is accepted. Complaint dated 8.10.2002 filed by Kamarjit Singh complainant/respondent No.2 qua Jit Singh petitioner is quashed and the order passed on 18.2.2005 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, while summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is set aside. 16. The petition (Criminal Misc. No. 25022-M of 2005) filed by Ravinder Singh is without any merit and the same is dismissed. -