HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 313 / 2017
Jabber Singh S/o Shri Rawat Singh, aged about 60 Years, By
Caste, Rajpurohit, resident of Village Aakdeda, Police Station
Sandairav, District – Pali.
The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P., for the State
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused impugned order dated 28.09.2016
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. By
the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the
application of petitioner-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to
summon Paras Singh and Chandan Singh sons of Kishore Singh,
and Anusuiya d/o Kishore Singh, as accused persons, to be tried
with other accused persons in the case involving offence under
Sections 498A and 304B IPC.
Pursuant to FIR No.243/2012 of Police Station Phalodi,
District Jodhpur, police submitted charge-sheet against some
accused persons while dropping the aforementioned incumbents.
During investigation, accused Kishore Singh and Ayodhya Devi
(2 of 3)
were not apprehended, therefore, against them charge-sheet
under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is submitted.
Learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused persons
and committed the case to learned trial Court. The learned trial
Court framed charge against accused Shyam Singh and proceeded
for trial. During the course of trial, three prosecution witnesses
were examined. Taking note of the statements of these three
witnesses, petitioner laid an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
to summon aforesaid incumbents as accused persons to be tried
with other accused, who are named as accused in the charge-
sheet. Learned trial Court, upon examining the evidence of the
prosecution and while relying on the legal precedents, has
declined the prayer of petitioner. Learned trial Court has
discussed the powers of Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in light of
the law propounded by Supreme Court and has found that, prima
facie, evidence is not of sterling worth so as to indicate that these
incumbents appear to be guilty of the offence. With these
findings, learned trial Court has rejected the application.
Upon examining the matter, in my opinion, learned trial
Court has not committed any manifest error of law and fact in
exercise of its discretion and therefore, the said order cannot be
subject matter of judicial review in exercise of revisional
(3 of 3)
While recording my satisfaction about correctness, legality
and propriety of the impugned order, I feel disinclined to interfere
in the matter.
Consequently, petition fails and the same is hereby