Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 445 (RAJ)

Kulveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-03-13

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a challenge is made to the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri. Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.29/2017 whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed. 2. None present for the petitioner. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the order under challenge and the other material as made available to the Court. 3. It is reflecting from the material that names of several accused persons were mentioned in the FIR and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only against the accused Prem Kumar, Meghraj, Labh Singh, Lakhvindra Singh, Pradeep singh @ Deepa Singh, Bhupendra Singh @ Pinder Singh and Kana Ram S/o Gopi Ram. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and where after framed charges for the offence under Sections 307, 364, 326, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149 & 120B of the IPC. During trial, three witnesses P.W. 1 Kulveer Singh, P.W. 2 Nakshtra Singh and P.W. 3 Parvinder Singh @ Nikka got examined. At this juncture, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be submitted for arraigning other persons as an accused who were not charge sheeted. The learned trial Court heard the parties and after minute observation of the evidence brought on record, allowed the application to the extent of impleading another persons namely 1.Jai Narayan S/o Kashi Ram, 2. Nai @ Navneet Singh S/o Iqbal Singh and 3. Om Prakash S/o Krishan Bawari, while taking cognizance against them however, rejected the prayer regarding Gurpal Singh, Bindra Singh, Labh Singh, Daljeet Singh, Angrej Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Yadvindra Singh, Sukhdeep, Babalpreet and Kalu Ram and, therefore, the petitioner Kulveer Singh preferred the instant Misc. Petition. 4. The law in this regard is not more res-integra that by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court of law has a discretion to arraign other persons also as an accused who have been left out by the investigating agency but sufficient material is there to show their involvement in commission of crime. 5. Petition. 4. The law in this regard is not more res-integra that by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court of law has a discretion to arraign other persons also as an accused who have been left out by the investigating agency but sufficient material is there to show their involvement in commission of crime. 5. It is nigh well settled principle of law that the word 'cognizance', used in Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires more caution then to the word 'cognizance' used in Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. sufficiency of material at the above stage are distinct and so the parameters are also different. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of N.Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector Of Police & Ors (Special Leave to Appeal No.8696/2021 decided on 16.02.2024. 6. After minutely going through the material available on record more particularly, the order under challenge dated 12.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri. Ganganagar, this Court feels that the discretion vested in the trial Court for impleading additional accused by exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has prudently been exercised by the learned trial Judge. The statements of three prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Kulveer Singh, P.W. 2 Nakshtra Singh and P.W. 3 Parvinder Singh @ Nikka got recorded during trial as well as the other material has aptly been appreciated and where after the learned trial Court allowed the application and ordered to arraign three more persons namely 1.Jai Narayan S/o Kashi Ram, 2. Nai @ Navneet Singh S/o Iqbal Singh and 3. Om Prakash S/o Krishan Bawari, as an accused to face the trial. Seven persons are already facing the trial in addition to the newly added three accused persons. The learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not impleading the remaining persons as an accused for which prayer was made. 7. Upon consideration of the entire material made available on record and after perusing the order under assail, I do not find any reason to interfere in a well reasoned order. Thus, there is no force in the instant Misc. Petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The stay petition stands disposed of.