1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the “Cr.P.C.”) as to quash the order dated 03.09.2024, passed in Session Trial (Reg.) No. 4760/2014 arising out of Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 416 of 2013, passed by learned Additional District C Sessions Judge – X, Kaimur at Bhabua.

3. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the version of the informant namely, Surendra Kumar Mishra (PW-3) as stated in his fardbeyan that on 13.08.2013, while his son namely, Rajesh Kumar was going to study at about 7:00 A.M., then, Santosh Mishra (petitioner) and Dharmendra Mishra started assaulting him. The informant further alleged that when he asked the accused persons regarding assaulting his son, then, petitioner along with all the co-accused persons started firing with Katta and gun, due to which he along with his wife, son and other family members sustained fire-arm injuries.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. bearing Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 416 of 2013, under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was lodged against the petitioner and others.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during course of investigation several witnesses, while recording their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. witness Shiv Kumari Devi (para 7 of the case diary), sister-in-law of the informant (para 8 of the case diary), independent witness namely, Gangadhar Mishra (para 9 of the case diary), did not name the petitioner as an assailant for the reason that he was not present on the relevant date and time of the occurrence, as he used to reside at Bhabua with his family in connection of his school business.

6. It is submitted that similar statement was given by Hanumant Singh (para 10 of the case diary), Jamuna Mishra (para 11 of the case diary), Phuljhari Devi (para 29 of the case diary), Subhash Ram (para 34 of the case diary), Rinki Kumari (para 35 of the case diary) and Chhathu Bind (para 45 of the case diary) that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. These witnesses are also charge-sheeted witnesses and, therefore, police, after completion of investigation, on the basis of materials collected during course of investigation, submitted final form/charge-sheet No. 76 of 2014 dated 30.11.2014, by exonerating the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel that to drag the petitioner in commission of crime, who is an innocent person, is out of oblique and ulterior motive in the background of land dispute. It is submitted that the aforesaid charge- sheet exonerating the petitioner was also accepted by learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua vide order dated 23.01.2015, where no protest petition was filed by the informant against the petitioner at the time of accepting the final form.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel that present case is a counter case lodged earlier by the petitioner’s side where informant’s side were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which was registered as Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 415 of 2013 dated 13.08.2013.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel that during course of trial in case of other co-accused persons i.e. Session Trial No. 4760/2014, the witness i.e. PW-1 Shiv Kumari Devi, PW-2 Manorama Kunwar and PW-3 Surendra Kumar Mishra (informant) took the name of petitioner in their deposition with oblique motive as to drag petitioner with present case, whereafter a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. dated 06.05.2022 has been filed by the prosecution before the court of learned District and Sessions Judge – XII, Kaimur for summoning the petitioner to face the instant trial.

10. It is submitted that learned trial court passed the summoning order under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in haste and also in mechanical manner by ignoring the established principle of law in this regard. It is also pointed out that PW-1 namely, Shiv Kumari Devi, in para 1 of her chief, did not name this petitioner as an assailant, where in para 2, she stated regarding land dispute between the parties. In para 5 of cross-examination, she categorically stated that petitioner was residing at Bhabua with family.

11. In this context, it is further submitted that PW-2 Manorama Kunwar and PW-3 Surendra Kumar Mishra also deposed contradictory statements which are inconsistent qua testimony of PW-1 namely, Shiv Kumari Devi and, therefore, with aforesaid evidence summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. not appears legally convincing.

12. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the present petition, submitted that occurrence is not denied by the petitioner as for the same occurrence Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 415/2013 was lodged.

13. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that from perusal of testimony of PW-1 namely, Shiv Kumari Devi, PW- 2 Manorama Kunwar and PW-3 Surendra Kumar Mishra it appears that they are injured eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. They received injury during course of occurrence and, therefore, their testimony cannot be viewed with doubt and as such same is sufficient to make out a prima-facie case in view of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner.

14. It is pointed out that all these injured witnesses categorically submitted during course of trial that petitioner was also involved in firing during occurrence. It is submitted that PW-2 Manorama Kunwar categorically stated that due to firing of this petitioner, Surendra Kumar Mishra (PW-3) received bullet injury. This fact was also deposed by PW-3 (injured)/informant.

15. In support of his submission, learned A.P.P. further submitted that exonerating petitioner after investigation and accepting charge-sheet by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate does not lead to conclusion ipso facto that petitioner cannot be summoned by exercising power under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as same required to be issued on the basis of material surfaced during the trial. In support of his submission, learned A.P.P. relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Yadwinder Singh Vs. Lakhi alias Lakhwinder Singh and Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC 686].

16. Learned A.P.P. submitted that while exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [AIR 2015 SC 923]; has held that “even when a person is not named in the charge-sheet as an accused person, the trial court has adequate powers to summon such a non-named person as well.”

17. It would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated 03.09.2024, which reads as under:

JUDGE-X

“IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS KAIMUR AT BHABHUA

Sessions Tr. (Reg.) No.4760 of 2014 ORDER

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

18. It would be apposite further to reproduce Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as under for a ready reference:

“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 proceeding in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, 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.”

19. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 16 and 17 of Yadwinder Singh’s case (supra), which reads as under:

“16. The law contemplates and provides for a different outcome under Section 319 of the Code, dependent on the peculiar factual premises of a case. Juxtaposition of the law with the instant factual backdrop reveals as under : It is true that the SIT found no evidence against the private respondents, however such factum by itself puts no fetters on the powers bestowed under Section 319 of the Code. Moreover, eye-witnesses in the Trial Court have named the private respondents as persons present on the site of occurrence. The hardship, were we to adjudge it at this juncture, could be more if the private respondents are not summoned than opposed to if they are.

17. Be it noted, the private respondents will have all defences open to them before the Trial Court to put forth their version of innocence, including by way of resort to cross-examination. Trial being an exercise to unravel the truth, given the depositions before the Trial Court, to absolve the private respondents based on the SIT's findings alone, to our mind, may not be in the best interests of justice. Indubitably, while an innocent person should not be punished, no guilty person should go scot-free. The Trial Court could have better worded its order through clearer reasoning. Reproduction of a passage from Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v. Ravindra Loonkar, (2024) 2 SCC 122 is apt:

‘39. In the recent past, from Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] to Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan [Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 1], the clear position in law is that a court or even a quasi-judicial authority has a duty to record reasons for its decision. Needless to add, “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless.” [Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 212]…”

20. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission and also by taking guiding note of Yadwinder Singh’s Case (supra), as the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence as per testimony/oral evidence of injured witnesses, who examined before the court as PW-1 (Shiv Kumari Devi), PW-2 (Manorama Kunwar) and PW- 3/informant (Surendra Kumar Mishra), where they categorically deposed against petitioner as to open fire which caused bullet injury to them particularly upon PW-3/informant to his stomach and other body parts along with co-accused namely, Dharmendra, where order under challenged appears reasoned explaining all aforesaid aspects did not inviting any interference of this Court, while dealing present petition.

21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the present petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly, same stands dismissed at admission stage itself.

22. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.