Delhi High Court (May 14, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125015 2001-DLT-94-252 :: 2001-AD (Del)-4-1089 VISHWANT KUMAR Vs. STATE of DELHI S. K. Agarwal ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under sections 397/401 read with section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Criminal Procedure Code) is directed against the order summoning dated 2 2/11/1994 passed by Sh-D S Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge holding that sufficient material available on record to summon the petitioner in case FIR No. 129/93 u/s 308/34 Indian Penal Code PS Vasant Vihar. ( 2 ) ADMIT- I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts are On the basis of report lodged by Ranbir Viranjia above noted case was registered, After investigations challan was filed. In the challan petitioner was not arrayed as an accused; Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to the court of sessions Court for trial and the Sessions Court vide impugned orders dated 22-11-1994 without recording of any evidence summoned the petitioners holding that there is sufficient evidence and material against them, Which has been challenged ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that without an order of committal, The sessions Court could not summon the petitioner at that stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Supreme Court decision in Ranjit Singh Vs. State, 1998 VII Ad (SC) 217 wherein it was held "20. Thus, onnce the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the a ecused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Session Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course, it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers. " ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, no evidence NBS recorded by the Sessions Court before summoning the petitioner therefore, the impugned order dated 22-11. 94 summoning them is not sustainable in view of law laid down by the Apex Court and same is liab1e to be quashed. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing arguments on charge, learned Sessions Court on 30. 4. " ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, no evidence NBS recorded by the Sessions Court before summoning the petitioner therefore, the impugned order dated 22-11. 94 summoning them is not sustainable in view of law laid down by the Apex Court and same is liab1e to be quashed. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing arguments on charge, learned Sessions Court on 30. 4. 1996 held that accused persons are liable to be charged and tried on1y for offences under section 147/148/149/323 Indian Penal Code and no offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is made out and remanded the case back to the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 228 Criminal Procedure Code for trial in accordance with law. The Magistrate"s Court after the case NBS remanded back framed the charges the accused persons including petitioners and the matter is pending trial. It is argued that since the original order summoning has been quashed the subsequent charge framed is also liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand argued that the Magistrate Could valid1y take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 190 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, charge against the petitioner is sustainable. I am unable to agree. The Magistrate did not take cognizance under clause (b) or (c), sub-section (1) of section 190 Criminal Procedure Code. against the petitioners. The charge was framed against the petitioners, consequent upon the remand order dated 30. 4. 1996. As held above the order of summoning by the Sessions Court itself is not sustainable. Therefore the order of framing charge against petitioners based on such an order must also go. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons revision petition is accepted. The order of framing charge against the petitioner is also quashed. Needless to point out that if during the course of tria1 evidence comes on record against the petitioners so as to warrant their summoning of the petitioners under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, trial court would be well within its jurisdiction to summon them. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. --- *** --- .