[2026:RJ-JP:3652] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1696/2019 1. Baluram S/o Juwana, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 2. Kalu S/o Harji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 3. Heera S/o Harji, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 4. Priyanka D/o Harji, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 5. Pokhri W/o Harji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 6. Geeta W/o Bajrang, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 7. Rameshi W/o Surajkaran, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. 8. Gulab W/o Soji, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Manbhar W/o Chhotu Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chandli Ki Jhonpadiyan, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav, Adv. for Mr. Bharat Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP with Mr. Anirudh Singh, Astt. Adv. Mr. Girish Bhabhara, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 27/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:3652] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1696/2019] 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Deoli, District Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as, 'Revisional Court'), whereby, Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2018 of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Deoli, District Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as, 'Trial Court') in Case No. 153/2016 was affirmed. The trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2018 accepted the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioners were summoned through bailable warrant. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was lodged on 30.05.2015 and the charge-sheet was submitted against following accused namely - Badri Lal, Surajkaran, Bhuban, Sheoji Ram, Harji and Hansa for the offences under Sections 341, 354, 323 read with Section 149 and 325 of IPC. It is also contended that during the course of the trial the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the trial Court accepted the application and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 20.03.2018. 3. It is contended that the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 is per se illegal and contrarily to the fact as upon the bare perusal of the charge-sheet and material placed on the record itself shows that there was no material against the petitioners to arraigned them as accused in the aforesaid offences. It is also contended that the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was submitted at the belated stage as the trial against the other co- [2026:RJ-JP:3652] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1696/2019] accused have already been substantially proceeded, therefore, the order passed by the Court below may be set aside. 4. Contrarily, it is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the entire material was placed on record before the learned trial Court and on the basis of the statement of the witnesses, the petitioners were arraigned as an accused for the aforesaid offences. The counsel for the complainant places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92, wherein it was held that if there are prima facie material available on the record for summoning the accused who have been left out during the course of the trial then the Court is empowered to arraigned them as culprit under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that in the said judgment it is also observed that even on the basis of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses the person can be arraigned as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, there was statement of the eye-witnesses against the petitioner alleging their culpability in the said offence, therefore, in the light of judgment passed in the matter of Hardeep Singh (Supra) the criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of any merit, hence deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. 7. There is concurrent finding with regards to involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence as the learned trial Court after examining the material eye-witnesses namely PW.3 Manbhar and PW.9 Mukesh took cognizance against the petitioner and arraigned them as an accused in the aforesaid offences. [2026:RJ-JP:3652] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1696/2019] 8. Thus, there was enough material placed before the trial Court to show that the petitioner were involved in the alleged offence. Furthermore, the Revisional Court also concurred with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the revision petition filed against the impugned order dated 20.03.2018. 9. Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. The stay application, if any, stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-44