Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1363 (MP)

Sunil Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-10-27

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under sections 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) seeking the following reliefs : “By allowing this petition, impugned order dated 9.6.2014 be quashed whereby the application filed under section 319 of the Code was allowed by the trial Court, petitioner was directed to be summoned by issuing arrest warrant and further direction was issued that by conducting a fresh investigation against the petitioner final report be filed.” 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that whenever the application under section 319 of the Code is allowed such kind of direction/order cannot be passed by the trial Court. Learned senior counsel further submitted that his prayer is only set aside the direction issued by the trial Court in last paragraph of the impugned and he does not want to call in question the entire order passed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to face the trial for which appropriate order in regard to furnishing bail bond before the trial Court be passed. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer of petitioner’s counsel and prayed for its rejection. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, impugned order has been perused. 6. Learned trial Court while exercising the power vested in it under section 319 of the Code has passed the impugned order in the following manner : “After taking into consideration the facts of the case and evidence available on record, the application filed by prosecution dated 24.3.2014 is hereby allowed. Accused Sunil Singh Rajawat be called by issuing the arrest warrant and prosecution is directed to conduct a fresh investigation against the petitioner and on completion of it, final report be filed.” 7. Since the pivotal point of consideration before this Court is while exercising the power vested under section 319 of the Code, aforesaid direction can be issued by the trial Court ? Provisions of 319 reads as under : “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. Since the pivotal point of consideration before this Court is while exercising the power vested under section 319 of the Code, aforesaid direction can be issued by the trial Court ? Provisions of 319 reads as under : “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then - (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. 8. In view of the following discussions, this Court is of the considered view that while exercising the power vested under section 319 of the Code, the direction contained in the impugned order in regard to a fresh investigation and filing of final report against the petitioner cannot be passed by the trial Court, hence that part of the order impugned order is hereby set aside being illegal and against the mandate of law. 9. It is directed that petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on or before 10.11.2014 and thereafter on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of concerning Court, he be released on bail. He shall face the trial in accordance with law. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.