…. Md. Aziz … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 699 of 2021 …. Md. Aziz …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party With Cr. M.P. No. 2003 of 2021 …. 1. Ruhul Aman Ahmad @ Laddan @ Rahul @ Aman Ahmed 2. Ruhul Aqueel Ahmad @ Munnain …… Petitioners The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party Versus With Cr. Rev. No. 414 of 2021 …. Guddu Gupta @ Brij Mohan Gupta …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhakat ……Opp. Parties With Cr. M.P. No. 1778 of 2021 …. Shambhu Trivedi @ Nitin Chandra Trivedi …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhakat ……Opp. Parties With Cr. M.P. No. 2033 of 2021 …. Imdad Ansari …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party with Cr. Rev. No. 427 of 2021 …. Dinesh Agarwal Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Devi …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties with Cr. Rev. No. 429 of 2021 …. Ajay Kerketta …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party 2 with Cr. Rev. No. 567 of 2021 …. Abhishek Mishra Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhani Bhakat With …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties Cr. Rev. No. 576 of 2021 …. Md. Kareem @ Kareem Cable @ Karim Cable Wala Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhagat @ Bhagat @ Bhakt with Cr. Rev. No. 579 of 2021 …. …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties Tashbib Ahmed @ Tassu @ Tashmish Ahmed …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhagat With Cr. Rev. No. 589 of 2021 …. ……Opp. Parties Rajesh Kumar Singh @ R. K. Singh …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhakat With ……Opp. Parties Cr. M.P. No. 1683 of 2021 …. Md. Mushabir Alam @ Shahid …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhani Bhakat With ……Opp. Parties Cr. M.P. No. 1774 of 2021 …. Manoj Sahay Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhani Bhakat …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties With Cr. M.P. No. 1831 of 2021 3 …. Amit Kumar Singh Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhani Bhakat …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties With Cr. Rev. No. 59 of 2022 …. Gurpreet Singh Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhakat …… Petitioner ……Opp. Parties With Cr. Rev. No. 431 of 2022 …. Munna Dhobi @ Sonu Kumar Rajak …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhni Bhakat ----- ……Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate ----- (Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 2003 of 2021) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Modi, Advocate Mr. Anupam Shandilya, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1778 of 2021) : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate (Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021) : Mr.Prambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 427 of 2021) (Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2021) : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021) : Md. Haider Ali, Advocate Md. Hamid Raja, Advocate 4 (Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2021) (Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021) : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv (Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021) : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate :Mr. Saurav Kumar , Advocate : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate (Cr. M. P. No. 1683 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1774 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1831 of 2021) Mr. R. P. Gupta, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2022) For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III (Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1774 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1778 of 2021) Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A. P. P. ( Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021) (Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021) Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P. P. (Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2022) Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P. P. ( Cr. Revision No. 427 of 2021) Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A. P. P. (Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021) (Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021) (Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021) Mr. P. D. Agarwal, Spl. P. P. ( Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2021) (Cr. M. P. No. 1683 of 2021) ( Cr. M. P. No. 1831 of 2021) Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P. P. ( Cr. M. P. No. 2003 of 2021) Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P. P. (Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2022) For the Informant : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate (In All Cases) …. JUDGMENT C. A. V. on 12.07.2023 Pronounced on 21/08/2023 The above these Criminal Revision Applications and Cr. M. Ps. i.e. Cr. Rev. No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 2003 of 2021 and Cr. Rev. No. 414 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1778 of 5 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 2033 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2022 and Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1683 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1774 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1831 of 2021 are arising out of the same FIR and common order dated 08.07.2021 and as such, all the cases are being heard together and being disposed of together by this common order/judgment. 2. All these above Criminal Revisions and the above Cr.M.Ps. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners as named above by challenging the order dated 08.07.2021 passed by Sri Subhash, learned Sessions Judge-V-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P. S. Case No. 13 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 174 of 2018 [Special Case No. 174 of 2018] whereby the learned Court below has allowed the petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. filed on behalf of the informant for adding the petitioners as accused and further summoned the petitioners to face trial. 3. In Cr. Rev. No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 2003 of 2021:- Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that without going through the provisions of relevant law, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner by issuing summon under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 18.01.2018 for the offence taking place 2-3 years ago and even the petitioner is not named in the FIR and only three persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahato, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant, have been named in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and has enclosed the order sheet dated 14.12.2021 by 6 which it reveals that final report has been submitted in favour of the petitioners and the other petitioners by the C.I.D. and however, the Court below has issued summon. It is submitted that merely on the basis of statement of the victim girl examined as P.W.-3 and P.W.1 namely Nanak Chand Seth, summon has been issued under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C., which is completely illegal. It is further submitted that trial of the petitioner could not have been separated and the petitioner ought to have tried together with the other petitioners as named in the FIR in view of Section 319 (1) of the Cr. P. C. However, the learned Court below has committed grave illegality by separating the trial of 22 accused persons including this petitioners by passing a composite order in violation of Provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. It is submitted that on mere presumption and assumption of the Court that there will be delay in appearance and attendance of the accused persons, trial has been separated and as such, serious illegality is committed by the learned Court below. It is further submitted that after submission of the charge sheet on 06.05.2018 as the accused persons as named in the FIR, the CID took up the investigation in August, 2018 and even during pendency of C.I.D. investigation, the Court has issued summon, which is against the Provision of Law. It is submitted that quality of evidence is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. against the petitioner and in absence of cross- examination of the victim girl, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner can be convicted by the evidence of P.W.-3, the victim girl. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Nanakchand Seth, P.W.-2, Anita Ganotra and P.W.-4, Mamtha Seth, wife of Nanak Seth and P.W.-5 namely Dukhni Bhagat have merely stated that they have learnt the occurrence from P.W.-3, i.e. the victim girl and there is no eye witness of the occurrence and hence merely on the basis of 7 statement of P.W.-3, the victim girl, no summon can be issued under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. against the petitioner. It is submitted that except P.W.-3, victim girl, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. 4. It is submitted that even the victim girl has not named these petitioners during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 19.01.2018 after institution of the FIR on 18.01.2018. It is further submitted that even the victim girl has not named the petitioner before the Mahila Samittee or before the District Police for committing rape upon her. It is further submitted that no T. I. Parade has been conducted and it is peculiar as to how the victim girl has taken the name of so many persons including these petitioner after gap of two years for committing rape upon her. It is further submitted that age of the victim girl has not been proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that neither the certificate of date of birth issued by the Municipality or Matriculation certificate or Panchayat or School Leaving Certificate or any relevant document have been produced to show the age of the victim girl as below 19 years. It is submitted that the Doctor has assessed the age of the victim girl as 19 years. It is submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Michael Machado and Another reported in 2000 (3) SCC 262, no separate trial could have been registered against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenu Prakash Bhantu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2023 (5) SCC 386 and in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Versus State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289. It is submitted that power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 8
Legal Reasoning
should be exercised sparingly and rarely by the trial court but not in view of the emotion of victim girl. It is submitted that in view of above, the impugned order may be set aside and the Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. M. P. No. 2003 of 2021 may be allowed. 5. In Cr. Rev. No. 414 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1778 of 2021:-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, after adopting the submission advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. It is submitted that the victim girl has not given any date, month and time and place of occurrence during her evidence for the occurrence against the petitioners taking place. It is submitted that separate FIR should have been lodged against the petitioners, but the petitioners cannot be put on trial for action not committed by them and which is not the spirit of the FIR. 6. It is submitted that the persons named in the FIR may have been committed certain offences, but so far as these petitioners are concerned, there are merely alleged to have established physical relationship with the victim girl by way of prostitution and prostitution work is given colour of rape and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that no charges can be framed under provisions of Sections 212, 213, 215 and 219 of Cr.P.C. in view of the vague allegation made by P.W.-3, the victim girl, in her statement made at para-31 and 44 of her evidence. It is difficult to say as to which distinct offence was committed by the petitioners and at which place and at which particular time and in which year 9 and mere simple statement of committing rape by the petitioner on the victim girl would not amount to an offence of rape. It is submitted that in view of Sections 218, 220 and 221 of the Cr. P. C. rejoinder of trial in the same transaction cannot be possible in this case. 7. Leaned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the case of R. Dinesh Kumar @ Deena Versus State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 497 and in the case of Jogendra Yadav and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Another reported in 2015 (9) SCC 244.
Decision
It is submitted that in view of the above, this Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2021 and Cr. M. P. No. 1778 of 2021 may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside. 8. In Cr. M.P. No. 2033 of 2021:- Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, after adopting the submission advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that even the charge sheet has been submitted against three accused persons as named in the FIR on 06.05.2018 and even the charges were framed against the said accused persons and thereafter, the CID had taken over the investigation on 06.08.2018 and had submitted final report in favour of the petitioner on 14.12.2021 and in which, the learned Court below has issued notice upon the informant. However, in the midst of the proceeding, the learned Court below has committed grave illegality by issuing summon 10 against the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sartaj Singh Versus the State of Haryana and Another reported in 2021 (5) SCC 337. It is submitted that even the supplementary record bearing supplementary case no. Spl. Case No. 179/17 is shown pending before the same Court where the original record was pending before the learned Court below. However, the Court has issued summon against the petitioner and hence, grave illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021 may be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 371 of 2007 and has submitted that once the case is pending for investigation, then the petitioner will not come in domain of accused persons. 9. In Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2022:- Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner after adopting the submission of Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel, has further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and the police has not submitted charge sheet against him and no charges were framed against him. It is submitted that the informant of this case had collected the information from one Nanak Chand Seth i.e. P.W.-1, five months ago. However, the said Nanak Chand Seth, i.e. P.W.-1 had not informed the police about the said matter. It is submitted that P.W.- 11 3, i.e. the victim girl has named this petitioner in para-12 of her evidence and has submitted that she learnt the name of this petitioner –Gurpreet Singh when the CID people took her to his house. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the victim girl has further submitted that her uncle i.e. Nanak Chand Seth has taken her with several persons of the locality, who were threatening of dire consequences, but even then Nanak Chand Seth had not instituted any FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely named by the victim girl with the other persons. It is submitted that in Para-44, she claimed to identify all the persons by face, is completely wrong. Therefore, it is evident that all the story has been concocted at the instance of the said P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth. It is submitted that from the evidence of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth, it is evident that he was aware about the occurrence for the first time on 02.07.2017. However, he failed to lodge the F.I.R. or failed to inform the local police. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has transpired at para-16 of the evidence of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth and so far as general and omnibus allegation for committing rape upon the victim girl. It is further submitted that P.W.-4, Mamta Seth, who has stated in para- 10 and 23 of her evidence that she learnt from the victim girl that this petitioner along with other persons have been named by the victim girl, had committed rape upon her and the victim girl was taken to the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Mamta Seth has stated at para-10 that the victim girl was taken to the house of the petitioner by the accused persons namely Indrapal Saini, Shiv Kumar Mahato, Laddan Khan, Srikant and Tanushree. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Mamta Seth has further named this petitioner in para-69 of her evidence by stating that during investigation made by the C. I. D., the victim girl was taken to the 12 house of this petitioner and other persons by C.I.D. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has been merely named on suspicion by the victim girl after delay of around two year while she was alleged to be taken to the house of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he is in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, leanred Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel and has submitted that neither the date nor time nor year nor any month has been mentioned by the victim girl for committing offence upon her by this petitioner and thus, the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 11. In Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021:- Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, after adopting the argument advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel, has further submitted that the victim girl has falsely named the petitioner- Abhishek Mishra in para-11 and 44 of her evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor the police has submitted charge sheet against him. However, the victim girl has named the petitioner and other persons, who were summoned by the learned Court below, for committing rape upon her and no specific date, time and place have been mentioned, so far as this petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that neither any place nor time nor date nor year has been disclosed by the victim girl and on which date the petitioner has committed rape upon her. It is submitted that mere general and omnibus allegation for committing rape upon the victim girl is alleged in the evidence of P.W.-3, the victim girl. 13 12. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the victim girl has herself admitted in para-62 of her evidence that she is not aware as to what has been written in the FIR by her mother and she had further not disclosed the name of this petitioner recorded in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., rather she has named only three persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that P.W.-3, the victim girl, has submitted during her evidence at para-73 and 75 that she is not aware about her statement given before the Judicial Magistrate. However, he could not tell the name of accused-Srikant Mahto while her statement was being recorded by the Magistrate and hence the evidence of P.W.-3 is not reliable. It is submitted that as per the provision of Sections 212 and 213 of the Cr. P. C., form of charges contain ingredients of the possible place, time present and particular place and as such, no charges can be framed against the petitioner on vague and wild allegation without any specific date, time, year and place of committing offence by the petitioner. It is submitted that the informant ought to have lodged separate F.I.R. against the petitioner, if she was aware of the name of the petitioner, but she failed to do so. It is submitted that the victim girl has not named the petitioner for taking her to any particular place for committing rape upon her. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-3, the victim girl is also not reliable and no summon can be issued against this petitioner and hence, this Criminal Revision may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 13. In Cr. M.P. No. 1683 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1774 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1831 of 2021:- Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are neither named in the FIR nor charge sheet has been submitted against them nor the victim girl 14 has taken the name of these petitioners namely Md. Mushabir Alam and Manoj Sahay and Amit Kumar Singh. It is submitted that these petitioners namely Md. Mushabir Alam @ Shahid is named in para-11 of the evidence by P.W.- Mamta Seth, who has stated that she was taken to his house whereas the petitioner -Manoj Sahay is named in para-14 by the victim girl and the victim girl has stated that she was taken to the house of Manoj Sahay by Indrapal Saini. It is submitted that the petitioner - Amit Kumar Singh is named in para-20 of her evidence by the victim girl for committing rape upon her. However, the victim girl has failed to disclose on which place, date, area and month, the petitioner namely Md. Mushabir Alam @ Shahid, Manoj Sahay and Amit Kumar Singh have committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl has again named all these three persons in para-44 of her evidence. It is submitted that except making bald allegation against these petitioners, there is no concreate evidence to implicate them in the present case. 14. It is submitted that even the informant has filed counter affidavit in this case and Para-377 of the diary has been enclosed in page-160 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and in which it has come on record that CDR and location of mobile phone of the victim girl and other persons granted by the learned Court below has not been found by the CID during investigation or even by the local police. It is submitted that even the mobile location of the victim girl has not been found, which is mentioned at page-162 of this Criminal Revision Application, which is part of the case diary. It is further submitted that they have filed supplementary affidavit and has enclosed the final report submitted in favour of these petitioners as Annexure-3. It is submitted that Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. speaks “of an offence” and before issuance of summon against Section 319 of the Cr. P.C., 15 the learned Court below ought to have ensured the compliance of provisions of Section 319 (1) and (2) of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted that even one Manager of Motel Highway has not identified these petitioners namely Md. Mushabir Alam and Manoj Sahay and Amit Kumar Singh and he has not identified even the victim girl, when she was shown on production. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down in the case of Michael Machado and Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2000 (3) SCC 262, no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners by summoning under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that he is in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel and all other counsels. It is further submitted that even in view of the statement of the victim girl against these petitioners, no charges can be framed in light of Section 212 and 213 of the Cr. P. C. and as such power under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. could not be exercised by the learned Court below and hence the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and may be set aside and Cr. M. P. No. 1683 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1774 of 2021 and Cr. M.P. No. 1831 of 2021 may be allowed. 16. In Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021:- At the outset, Mr. Haider Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners namely Md. Kareem @ Kareem Cable and Tashbib Ahmed have been named in para-11 of 16 her evidence by the P.W.-3 i.e. the victim girl. It is submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against these petitioner as to the date, year, time and place where the rape was committed by these petitioners. It is submitted that petitioner Md. Kareem @ Kareem Cable has been named in para-44 of the evidence of P.W.- 3 by making general and vague allegation against several persons including these petitioners. It is submitted that in absence of any place, time, date and year, no charges can be framed against these petitioners namely Md. Kareem @ Kareem Cable and Tashbib Ahmed and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and may be set aside and Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021 may be allowed. 17. In Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021:- At the outset, Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel and Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel. It is submitted that the petitioner-Rajesh Kumar Singh has been named by P.W.-3, the victim girl during her evidence in para-11 and para- 44 for the first time before the learned Court below. However, no specific place, date, time and year has been mentioned by the victim girl for committing rape by the petitioner upon her. It is submitted that in view of the above, no charges can be framed against him and summon should not have been issued against him under section 319, Cr.P.C. and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 18. In Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021:- At the outset, Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is adopting the arguments 17 advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel and Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel. 19. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is Dy. S. P. and has not participated in any offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner -Ajay Kerketta is neither named in the FIR nor charge sheet has been submitted against him and the victim girl has not named this petitioner during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as Dy. S. P. at the relevant point of time and is not concerned with the victim girl or with this case. It is submitted that victim girl i.e. P.W.-3 has named this petitioner in para-15, 33 and 35 during her evidence. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the victim girl has falsely stated in her evidence at para-15 that the petitioner has committed rape upon her in a room at M.G.M. police station at the time of ‘Demonetisation of Money’ and which took place in the year 2016-17. It is further submitted that the victim girl has falsely stated in para-33 and para-35 in her evidence that Officer In-charge of M.G.M. police station was calling the petitioner as ‘Sir’ and as the petitioner was not present at the said police station and his complicity has even neither been found by the police and also nor by the CID. It is submitted that the victim girl has not disclosed as to how, she learnt about the name of this petitioner-Ajay Kerketta, who was working as Dy.S.P. at the relevant point of time. 20. It is submitted that no charges can be framed on the basis of bald and baseless allegation and no specific date, time and year has been mentioned by the victim girl against the petitioner for committing rape upon her and for giving her any threatening. It is submitted that CID has submitted final report in favour of the 18 petitioner-Ajay Kerketta on 14.12.2021 and the learned Court below has issued notice upon the informant i.e. mother of the victim girl on 14.12.2021. However, the mother of the victim girl has not appeared before the trial Court below till date. 21. It is further submitted that CID started investigation in this case pursuant to the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2018, which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 of this Criminal Revision Application No. 429 of 2021. It is submitted that the said W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2018 was heard along with W.P. (Cr.) No. 286 of 2018, which was filed by the another petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 414 of 2021 before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that on 10.02.2021, Additional Director General (CID), Jharkhand had appeared before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of Video Conferencing and has assured that CID will conclude the investigation at the earliest and Additional Director General (CID), Jharkhand had assured the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to inform regarding the investigation and has submitted that he is monitoring the investigation personally and has issued several directions, which are being followed by the Investigating Officer (s). 22. It is further submitted that vide order dated 06.08.2019 passed in W. P. (Cr.) No. 286 of 2018, it was also informed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegation, further investigation of the case was handed over to the CID by the State Government, but till date CID had not submitted charge sheet and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the State to file supplementary counter affidavit on or before 17.09.2019 and therefore, the investigation of this case was carried out by the CID under the direction of the High Court. It is submitted that CID has submitted final report in favour of the petitioner and has exonerated the 19 petitioner from all the charges levelled against him by the victim girl. It is submitted that no charges can be framed against the petitioner in light of the provisions of Sections 211, 212 and 213 of the Cr. P. C. and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 23. In Cr. Revision No. 427 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2021:- At the outset, Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel and Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel. It is further submitted so far as the petitioner-Dinesh Agarwal is concerned that P.W.-3, the victim girl has named this petitioner in para-19 of her evidence for committing rape upon her. It is submitted that except making bald allegation against this petitioner, there is no concrete evidence to implicate him in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner - Munna Dobi @ Sonu Kumar Rajak in Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2021 has been named in para-11 of her evidence by the victim girl. 24. It is submitted that neither the date, time, month and year have been mentioned by the victim girl against the petitioners for committing rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl again named both these petitioners namely Dinesh Agarwal and Munna Dobi @ Sonu Kumar Rajak. It is further submitted that so far as the petitioner –Dinesh Agarwal is concerned, the P.W.-3, the victim girl has named him in para-19 of her evidence for committing rape upon and only bald allegation has been made in illegal manner, whereas the petitioner - Munna Dobi @ Sonu Kumar Rajak has been named in 20 para-11 of her evidence by the victim girl. It is submitted that neither the date, time, month, year have been mentioned by the victim girl against the petitioner for committing rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl again named both these petitioners namely Dinesh Agarwal and Munna Dobi @ Sonu Kumar Rajak in para-44 of her evidence by making general and vague allegation for committing rape upon her. 25. It is submitted that before activating the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P. C., compliance of Sections 212 and 213 of the Cr. P. C. is mandatory and in absence of any specific date, time, month and year, the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. could not have been activated due to non-compliance of Sections 212 and 213 of the Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors Versus State Of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (7) SCC 706 and in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92. It is further submitted that it is well settled from the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92 that no criminal proceeding can be initiated before framing of charges. It is submitted that it is evident from para- 4.3, 4.4 of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below on 08.07.2021 that neither any date nor place nor year have been mentioned by the victim girl and she has not stated about specific place and date for committing rape upon her by the accused persons during her evidence and hence, the Court has committed illegality by misinterpreting her evidence. So far as the finding of stronger evidence is concerned, which is more than prima facie against this petitioner, is not correct and as a matter of fact, there is no such, stronger evidence or even the prima facie case against 21 these petitioners. It is submitted that exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited in nature though the High Court can cure the illegality committed by the learned Court below. It is submitted that learned Court below has proceeded mechanically against the petitioner and other persons by issuing summons against them under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C., which is in complete in violation of the guidelines as decided in the case of Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Ors. Versus The State of Gujarat and Another reported in 2019 (12) SCC 644. 26. It is submitted that separating the trial from the trial of three accused persons is also illegal and in violation of the Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. [State Argument]:- 27. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA- III has submitted that though the CID has submitted final report in favour of the petitioners, but he is assisting this Court on the point of legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 08.07.201 passed by the learned Court below. It is further submitted that in all the above cases mentioned above so far as the petitioners are concerned, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that though the FIR was lodged only against three persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahato, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant and charge sheet has been submitted only against three persons, however, the victim girl, during her evidence, while examined as P.W.-3, has named all these above petitioners for committing rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl was not only subjected 22 to rape, but also her video of physical relationship was prepared by some of the accused persons and she was compelled to enter into sexual relationship in view of video prepared by the three prime accused persons. It is submitted that there is provisions under Section 319 (1) of the Cr. P. C. for issuing summon against any persons, whose name has come during trial in course of evidence of the prosecution witness. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the victim girl has named all these petitioners and which is corroborated also from the evidence of the P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth, P.W.-2, Anita Ganotra and P.W.-4, Mamta Seth, wife of Nanak Seth and P.W.-5, Dukhni Bhagat. It is submitted that the learned Court below has also observed that the victim girl is the sole eye witness and has rightly discussed her evidence in para-3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.4 and 4.5 in its impugned order dated 08.07.2021. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of the direct evidence found against above these petitioners, the learned Court below has committed no illegality. 28. Learned GA-III has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Versus State of Punjab reported in 2023 (1) SCC 289. It is submitted that in view of the above, all the above cases i.e. Criminal Revisions and Cr. M.Ps. Petitions are devoid of merit and all the above cases may be dismissed. 29. Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021 and Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021:- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A. P. P. has also submitted that the impugned order dated 08.07.2021 suffers from no illegality and the learned Court below has rightly issued summon against all these petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021 and Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021. Learned A. P. P. has also 23 adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III and has submitted that Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021 and Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021 may be dismissed. 30. Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021:- Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P. P. has also submitted that the impugned order dated 08.07.2021 suffers from no illegality and the learned Court below has rightly issued summon against all these petitioners of Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021. Learned A. P. P. has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III and has submitted that Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021 and Cr. Revision No. 589 of 2021 may be dismissed. Argument advanced by the Informant:- 31. Mr. Devesh Ajmani, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that all these above Criminal Revisions and Cr.M.Ps. Petitions are devoid of merit. It is submitted that this is a rare of rarest cases in which the learned Court below has issued summons against the petitioners. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the informant-Dukhni Bhagat has filed written application before the Shikayat Koshang (i.e. Grievance Cell) in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur on 25.11.2017 itself by taking the names of against three persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahato, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant and all others and several other persons, who have filed Criminal Revisions and Cr. M. Ps. Petitions for committing rape upon her and it has also stated and alleged in that application that the daughter of the informant was administered drugs by injection and she was sent to prostitution and thereafter rape was committed by the accused persons and others and who have 24 challenged the impugned order. It is submitted that it is a matter of surprise that Senior Superintendent of Police has directed the subordinate concerned police station to lodge the FIR and thereafter two months, ultimately FIR was lodged on 18.01.2018, but only against three persons and investigation remained pending in the garb of investigation for saving prime persons including the police officials and these petitioners, who were named by the informant i.e. the mother of the victim girl for committing rape upon her daughter. 32. It is submitted that even after lodging of the FIR, the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. by the police on 18.01.2018 itself, which is mentioned at para- 10 of the case diary and the victim girl has named several persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indra Kumar Saini @ Liku Uncle, Md. Aziz, Ruhul Aman Ahmad, Ruhul Aqueel Ahmad @ Munnain, Guddu Gupta, Shambhu Trivedi, Imdad Ansari, Dinesh Agarwal, Ajay Kerketta, Abhishek Mishra, Karem Cable Wala, Tashmish Ahmed, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Shahid, Manoj Sahay, Amit Kumar Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Munna Dhobi and several other persons namely Tanushrehree, Upendra Singh, Sonu Nair and Maksud She has also stated that on the one hand that Tanushree had administered her injection and then one boy had committed rape upon her. She has also stated that Saini and Shiv Kumar took her to Motel Highway, where 4-5 persons used to commit rape upon her and the said lady administered injection upon her. She has also stated that Indrapal Saini and Shiv Kumar took the victim girl to Hotel Four Line several time, Dimna Resort, house of Rajesh, outside Sahara City respectively and also in the house of one Munnain and where 4- 5 persons were present and she was subjected to rape. Thereafter she was again taken in the house of one person by Indrapal Saini and she was subjected to rape. She has also named one Sonu Nair for committing upon her. She has also stated that 8-9 boys near Dimna 25 Lake committed rape upon her and then she was caught by two police personnels and she was taken to M.G.M. Police Station along with 8-9 boys by Indrapal Saini and where Bada Babu (i.e. Officer In-charge) was alone and she was confined with the boys in the same Hazat and thereafter she was taken to the room of Bada Babu i.e. Officer In-charge and Bada Babu (i.e. Officer In-charge) has committed rape upon her and thereafter one another police personnel, who was being addressed as ‘Sir’ (i.e. Ajay Kerketta, Dy. S.P.) by Bada Babu (i.e. Officer In-charge) had also committed rape upon her in the police station and she was taken to M.G.M. Police Station several times. She has also stated that she was subjected to rape by Srikant and who used to chase her Uncle and Aunty and Saini was using a car of Munna Khan for this purpose. She has also stated that she was aborted four times in a hospital situated near the MGM Police Station and she claimed to identify the accused person. The learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that it is not a case where the victim girl has named the accused persons-petitioners after two years, rather it is a case of the informant that even the victim girl has named the several persons during her statement before the police recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. at para-10 of the case diary, but the police failed to take any action. 33. It is submitted that the victim girl was examined as P.W.-3 has vividly described the names of the petitioners in para- 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of her evidence before the Trial Court and she has also stated in para-42 that one Tanushree used to administer drug by injection upon her prior to the occurrence of rape. It is further submitted that the victim girl has fairly stated during her cross-examination in para-56 that she disclosed the name of three persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indra Kumar Saini and Shrikant before the learned Judicial Magistrate because 26 she was threatened by the police officials to send her to jail and the victim girl being a poor tribal and helpless girl, has to abide by the direction of the police officials and the accused persons. It is submitted that even during investigation, the I.O. has moved before the School where the Victim girl was studying in Class-I and the Principal of said School has informed the police that the date of birth of the victim girl is ‘29.03.2000’, which has been disclosed at para-12 of the counter affidavit and which is also mentioned at para-108 of the case diary. It is submitted that even from the Medical Report of the victim girl, it has clearly come on record that she was habitual to intercourse and thus this is a clear case of the evidence of rape upon the victim girl. It is further submitted that investigation has been completely manipulated by the police as well as by the CID by not naming the other persons including these petitioners and, who have been summoned by the learned Trial Court below. It is further submitted that though the mother of the victim girl has filed a W.P.(Crl.) No. 74 of 2018 for CBI investigation, but during hearing of the said case being W.P.(Crl.) No. 74 of 2018, it was informed by the learned counsel for the State that investigation has been handed over to the CID on 08.08.2018 and the CID started investigation on 26.08.2018. It is further submitted that the victim girl has clearly stated about the place of occurrence where she was subjected to rape and rape was committed upon the victim girl and as such, charges can be framed against the petitioners by the learned Trial Court below. It is submitted that the veracity of statement of the victim girl will be seen and tested at the time of trial and as such, in view of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C., all the persons can be charged and tried together jointly, if the occurrence has taken place in one transaction and hence, separate trial is also not required. It is further submitted that the prosecution cannot institute 22 F.I.Rs. for causing rape upon the 27 victim girl as the victim girl was initially subjected to rape by the aforesaid three accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indra Kumar Saini and Shrikant and thereafter these petitioners have committed rape upon her and as such, there was no requirement to institute 22 separate F.I.Rs. and for instituting 22 SC/ST Cases against the accused persons, rather it is convenient to try all the accused persons in common trial. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth is mastermind of the occurrence In support of his contention learned counsel for the informant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjeet Singh Versus State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 632. It is submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from no illegality and hence, all the Criminal Revision Applications and all the Cr. M. Ps. are devoid of merit and as such, these all the cases mentioned above may be dismissed. 34. Perused the Lower Court Records, case diary and considered the submission of both the sides. 35. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged on 18.01.2018 by the informant-Dukhni Bhagat against three accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indra Kumar Saini and Shrikant by submitting written application to the Officer In-charge Mango Police Station for committing rape upon her daughter ( i.e. the Victim-X) and has stated that she has handed over her daughter to one Nanak Chand Seth 5-6 years ago, but she has been raped continuously by the said three accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indra Kumar Saini and Shrikant and they had prepared video and they had sent her daughter for prostitution in several Hotels outside the house of Nanak Chand Seth and also compelled her 28 daughter to establish physical relationship by way of prostitution with several other persons and they had prepared her several videos of these physical relationship by threatening and also threating by the said video and they had sexually and physically exploited her. 36. It transpires that the police has earlier submitted charge sheet under Sections 376 (2) (i) and 376-(C) (D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the said three persons. 37. It also transpires that the victim girl was examined under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 19.01.2018, but she has taken the name of only three accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant. 38. It transpires that that charges against the said persons were framed and the prosecution had examined twelve (12) witnesses. 39. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 08.07.2021, the learned Court below has taken cognizance under Sections 376 (2) (i) and 376-(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the issued summon under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. against all the above petitioners and some other persons and thus the petitioners above have challenged the impugned order. 40. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that before issuing summon under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. against all these petitioners named above, one Dukhni Dei i.e. the mother of the victim girl-X, had filed W. P. (Crl.) No. 74 of 2018 for C.B.I. investigation against these petitioners and others because the police was not taking any action against the petitioners and the State Government had filed affidavit before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said W. P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2018 and had informed that the investigation was handed over to the CID on 06.08.2018 and the C. I. D. had started investigation in this case from 26.08.2018. 41. It further transpires that after filing of these Criminal Revision before this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide 29 order dated 26.08.2021 had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2021 and which was extended on 14.09.2021, 8.10.2021, 3011.2021 and 05.12.2021 in other Criminal Revision Applications and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and thereafter the case was placed before this Court. 42. It transpires that during pendency of C. I. D. investigation, the learned Court below had issued summons under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C vide order dated 08.07.2021 against all these petitioners though C. I.D. had taken over the investigation on 26.08.2018. There is nothing on record to suggest that any protest was made by the Informant before the learned Court below for handing over the investigation to the C.I.D. 43. Thereafter, the CID has submitted a final report against all these petitioners on 14.12.2021 and has stated that no allegation is proved against these petitioners and the CID has exonerated all the petitioners for the offences under Sections 376 (2) (i) and 376-(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 44. It appears that the learned Court below while issuing summons vide order dated 08.07.2021, has relied upon the evidence of P.W.-1 namely Nanak Chand Seth, P.W.-2 namely Anita Ganotra, Sister of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 i.e. the victim girl and P.W.-4 namely Mamta Seth, wife of P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 namely Dukhni Devi i.e. the mother of the victim girl. 45. It further appears that the learned Court has issued summon by relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sartaj Singh Versus the State of Haryana and Another reported in 2021 (5) SCC 337 and in the case of Dharampal Versus State of Haryana and Others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 306 and in the case of Michael Machado and Another reported in 2000 (3) SCC 262 and in the case of Rajendra Singh Versus State of U. P. 30 and Another reported in AIR 2007 SC 2786 and several other cases. The learned Court below has further observed that in view of the order passed in B. A. No. 7774 of 2020 on 13.01.2021 by the High Court of Jharkhand has directed to conclude the trial within six months and further observed that as six months has been completed on 17.07.2021 and the aforesaid twenty two (22) new persons have been summoned as accused through petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. and there is also possibility that some time will be consumed for securing the attendance of aforesaid newly added twenty (22) accused persons and hence, trial has been separated for the said twenty (22) person, who are the petitioners before this Court and the trial of three accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant had been separated accordingly from these cases. 46. It transpires that the learned Court below has observed that mainly that the victim girl has named these petitioners in paragraph –11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of her evidence and she has named the petitioners namely Shambhu Trivedi, Tassu, Abhishek Mishra, Ajit Mistry, Shahid, Karim Keblewala, Munna Dhobi, Rajesh Kumar, one Langra Masud, Munain, Gurpreet Singh, Manoj Sahay, Ajay Kerketta, Imtiyaj Ansari (i.e. Imdad Ansari), Amit Singh, one Sonu Nair and one Upendra Singh, Guddu Gupta, Dinesh Agarwal and one Imtiyaj Ansari i.e. Imdad Ansari ( O/C of MGM Police Stataion) and whose names have been discussed in preceding paragraphs. It appears that the victim girl has named one lady also as well as 21 accused persons including one Dy. S. P. and one Officer In-charge and other several persons of different localities of Jamshedpur. 47. At this stage it will be relevant to quote Sections 212(1), 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223 (a) to (d) and 319 of the Cr.P.C., which read as follows:- 31 “Section-212 Cr. P. C.:- Particulars as to time, place and person.— (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in 108 respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) ………………………………………………………………. Section-213 Cr. P. C.:- When manner of committing offence must be stated.—When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Section-214 Cr. P. C.:- Words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable.—In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable. Section-215 Cr. P. C.:- Effect of errors.— No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Section-219 Cr. P. C.:- Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.—(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be 32 deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence. Section-220 Cr. P. C.:- Trial for more than one offence.—(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section-221 Cr. P. C.:- Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.—(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such 33 charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. Section-222 Cr. P. C.:- When offence proved included in offence charged.—(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. (3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied. Section-223 Cr. P. C.:- What persons may be charged jointly.—The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:— (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction; (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; (e)………………………………………………………………….. (f)…………………………………………………………………… (g) ………………………………………………………………….. 34 Section-319 Cr. P. C.:- 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 proceedings 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.” 48. Learned Sessions Judge-V-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur has mainly replied upon the evidence of the victim girl examined as P.W.-3 while issuing summon, but the learned Court below has referred the evidence of P.W.-1- Nanak Chand Seth, P.W.- 2, Anita Ganotra, sister of P.W.-1, and P.W.-4, Mamta Seth, wife of P.W.-1 and P.W.-5, Dukhni Devi at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 08.07.2021, hence it will be appropriate to look into to refer the evidence of the witnesses particularly upon which much reliance has been placed upon the learned Court below. 49. It transpires that the victim girl named the co-accused (now convict) namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar and Indrapal Saini for committing rape upon her and for preparing her video after 35 completely undressing her clothes in para- 3, 4, 5, and 6 by putting under fear and coercion and by blackmailing her. It also appears that the victim girl has further named Srikant and one Laddan @ Ruhul Aman Ahmad in the FIR for committing rape upon her and for making her video viral under threat and coercion and also for preparing her video. However, the learned Court below has separated the trial of three persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar and Indrapal Saini and Srikant as discussed earlier. 50. It has been informed that the said three persons have been convicted in Special Case No. 174 of 2018 and as such, for the present, the said evidence is not necessary, but the said convicts are in background for initially molesting and for committing rape upon the victim girl-X upon 3-4 years before lodging the FIR. Therefore the victim girl has named the petitioner- Shambhu Trivedi (Cr. M. P. 1778 of 2021) and the petitioner- Tashbib Ahmed in Cr. Revision No. 579 of 2021 and the petitioner- Abhishek Mishra in Cr. Revision No. 567 of 2021 and the petitioner- Md. Aziz in Cr. Revision No. 699 of 2021 and the petitioner- Md. Mushabir Alam @ Shahid in Cr. M. P. No. 1683 of 2021 and one another Shahid living in Sahara City, Kareem @ Kareem Cablewala in Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2021 and the petitioner- Munna Dhobi @ Sonu Kumar in Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2022 and Thereafter she has named Munnain in Cr. M. P. No. 2003 of 2021 and the petitioner- Gurpreet Singh in Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2022 and the petitioner – Manoj Sahay in Cr. M. P. No. 1774 of 2021 In Para-12 of her evidence she has taken names of the above petitioners for committing rape upon her. Thereafter the victim girl has further named Ajay Kerketta (i.e. Dy. S. P.) in Cr. Revision No. 429 of 2021 and Imtiaz (i.e. Imdad Ansari) in Cr. M. P. No. 2033 of 2021 and in para- 15 of her evidence for committing rape upon in the 36 premises of MGM police station. She has further named one woman Tanushree in para-16, 17, 18 for her evidence. However, it appears that the said Tanushree has challenged the impugned order and the case of the said Tanushree has not been brought before this Court. Thereafter she has also named the petitioner namely Amit Kumar Singh in Cr. M. P. No. 1831 of 2021 in para-20 for committing rape upon her. She has also named Dinesh Agarwal in Cr. Revision No. 427 of 2021. She has also named Sonu Nair and Ajit Mistri for committing rape upon her in para- 21, 26 and 27 of her evidence, though she has also named the other co-accused and one Upendra Singh, who had committed rape in Maintenance Office of Sahara City, Jamshedpur for committing rape upon her. However, it would also appear that that Tanushree, Sonu Nair and Ajit Mistri and Upendra Singh have not challenged the said order. It further appears that the victim girl-X has named Guddu Gupta @ Brij Mohan in Cr. Revision No. 414 of 2021 in para- 33 and 44 of the case diary. 51. From the conjoint reading of entire examination in-chef of the ‘victim girl-X, it would appear that the victim girl was subjected to rape by the above petitioners and other co-accused persons (not appeared before this Court) and she was also administered injection before such a heinous act by one lady Tanushree. 53. It would appear from the evidence of victim girl that all the petitioners had committed rape upon her and they used to prepare video of such act/offence and it was shown to other people and thereafter all the petitioners are said to have been acquainted with the matter and they had also committed rape upon the victim girl one by one and even her naked photographs were obtained in mobile and she was threatened by the accused persons for making it viral and even she was raped in the Car and even she is said to have been raped 37 several time in MGM police station at Jamshedpur and at Hotel Four Line and Motel Highway Hotel and also in the vacant flat situated behind the maintenance office of Sahara City, Jahsmedpur and even at para- 18, 32 and 43 reveals that she was subjected to gang rape by the various accused persons and even sperm was poured in her mouth by some of the accused persons. 54. From going through the evidence of P.W.-3, the victim girl- X, it would appear that the petitioner namely Laddan @ Ruhul Aman Ahmad was acquainted with the prime accused, Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar and Indrapal Saini and Srikant. She has described that Laddan @ Ruhul Aman Ahmad has committed rape upon her in the house of her uncle i.e. P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth on several occasions and the said other three accused used to commit rape upon her and made her video and despite her weeping, they continued to make her video. So far as the petitioners namely Shambhu Trivedi, Tashmish Ahmed, Abhishek Mishra, Md. Aziz, Md. Mushabir Alam @ Shahid, Kareem Cablewala, Munna Dhobi, Gurpreet Singh and Manoj Sahay, who are named in para- 11 of her evidence of P.W.-3, the victim girl, it would appear that they had committed rape on the instruction of Indrapal Saini and during her cross-examination, she has stated at para-111 that Laddan @ Ruhul Aman Ahmad lives in Marina City. She has further stated that accused i.e. the petitioner- Gurpreet Singh and Manoj Sahay named in para-12 of her evidence. She has further stated in para-12 of her evidence that she learnt and identified the name of Gurpreet Singh and Manoj Sahay, when the CID people too her to their respective houses and she was taken to the house of Manoj Sahay also by the accused Indrapal Saini. During Para-15, 32 and 33 of her evidence, it further reveals that the petitioner- Ajay Kerketta and Imdad Ansari had committed rape upon her in the premises of MGM police station at time of Note-bandi i.e. 38 Demonetization, which took place in the year 2016-17. Even during her cross-examination, although she has stated that she has named only three persons in the FIR and also before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the direction of police as the police officials had threatened her to send her to jail, if she named other people i.e. the petitioners. She has further stated that the co-accused, Srikant used to take information of her Uncle and Aunty and he used to chase them. She has also stated in para-168 of her evidence that she learnt the name of Dimna Lake, Hotel Forlane, Motel Highway because Indrapal Saini used to tell her to come to this place and hence she learnt the respective names. She has further stated in para- 38 and 77 that she became pregnant and she has also stated that her operation was done in their presence in a Hospital after crossing Mango Bridge in para-39 and 40 of her evidence. 55. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, Nanak Chand Seth, it would appear that he has supported the FIR and he has also supported the evidence of the victim girl, although, he was examined as P.W.-1, but he has stated that the victim girl was administered injection with the direction that four-five persons would make physical relationship with her during his absence by the accused persons named in the FIR and one woman Tanushree. He further stated that he suspected the occurrence for the first time on 02.07.2017 and after taking the victim girl in confidence, he learnt the entire occurrence from the victim girl and when the matter was informed to the accused-Shiv Kumar, then he along with 100-150 people came at the maintenance office and P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth was also called at maintenance office and the matter was pacified by the society of the Sahara City and who advised him to not disclose the matter to anyone and they had threatened them. It appears that P.W.-1 has disclosed the name of the petitioners and 39 other co-accused in para-15, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36 and 37 of his evidence. He has further stated during his examination in-chief at para- 35, 36 and 37 that he has informed the matter by filing an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and then even the Officer In-charge of Mango Police Station namely Arun Mehta. However, he awaited for the certain period, thereafter he enquired the matter from the victim girl. 56. He i.e. P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth further stated that though the FIR was lodged on 18.01.2018 at Mango Police Station, but at the time of recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., she was made to understand by the Officer In-charge to take name of only those persons named in the FIR and due to fear of the police, she only named three persons. He further stated that they had started putting pressure by several delegates for not instituting the case and even the accused Indrapal Saini instituted a complaint against him showing non-payment of Rs. 2, 80,000/- and more than 100-150 people raised slogans against him in Sahara City. Thereafter he had reported the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police for his security. Thereafter, the City Superintendent of Police has called him at his residence and P.W.-1 narrated the incident before him, then, the City Superintendent of Police along with Arun Mehta, Officer In-Charge, Mango Police Station has provided private car following him in Sahara City to his house and learnt the occurrence from the victim girl and the victim girl had also shown him three place of occurrence and where she was subjected to rape and she had also shown them MGM Police Station, Motel Highway and Four Line Hotel. He has also stated that the City S. P. has taken care of the case, but he had not instituted any case against the other accused person. He has also stated in para-55, 56 and 57 of his evidence that after institution of the FIR, after some days he was called at the police station and where the victim girl had identified 40 the Dy. S. P., Ajay Kerketta, who was addressed as “Sir” by the Officer In-charge of MGM Police Station and even Dy. S. P. has threatened his wife also. He also stated in para- 59, 60 and 61 of his evidence that one Arvind Singh of Special Branch came to his house and enquired the matter and in the meantime, one Mishra Ji called him that he is coming to his house with Imdad Ansari and Ajay Kerketta and then Dy. S. P. asked him to manage the case. He has also stated in para-71, 72, 73 and 74 of his evidence that he along with the victim, the informant had shown Sakchi Nursing Home to the Media people where the pregnancy of the victim girl was terminated and the victim girl has identified the hospital, doctor and nurse and operation theatre and video recording of the said aspect has also been done by the P.W.-1, even he has further stated that S. P. has shown anger against them for implicating the innocent people and for which, he has also prepared mobile recording in para-82 and 83 of his evidence. He has also stated that he filed a written application of around 19 pages before Sri Navin Kumar Singh in Police Headquarter and then, they filed W. P. (Criminal) before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi for making investigation by CBI as police was not investigating the case properly. He has further stated in para-87 that he has shown the entire place of occurrence to the CID, when the CID took over the investigation. 57. During cross-examination, he i.e. P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth has stated in para- 127 that information regarding occurrence was also taken from him by IG Saket Kumar and DIG, Kuldeep Dwivedi. He has also stated in para- 156 that even the society people were against him for instituting the case. He has also asserted in para-170 that apart from Shiv Kumar Mahto, Indrapal Saini and Srikant, other persons namely Laddan @ Ruhul, Shambhu Trivedi, Sonu Nair, Tassu @ Tashmish Ahmad, Ajij Mistri, Upender Singh, Sahid, 41 Kareem Kevalwala, Munna Dhobi, Rajesh, Amit Singh, Munnain, Dinesh Agarwal, Guddu Gupta, Maksud and Officer In-charge of MGM Police Station and one police officer addressed as ‘Sir’ by the Officer In-charge of MGM Police Station for committing rape upon the victim girl. Evidence of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth is approx.-308 paragraphs and as such, the same is not being discussed elaborately and the same is not required for the present as it may cause prejudice to the case of the either side. He has further stated, during his evidence in para- 297-298 that initially Shiv Kumar Mahato had established physical relationship with the victim girl for 2- 4 months, then the matter started spreading and the Shiv Kumar Mahato was followed by Indrapal Saini. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth, it would appear that although he is not the eyewitness of the occurrence, but he appears to the witness of the case circumstances at the police station and society and the evidence of the P.W.-3, the victim girl is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth for the purpose of issuing summon under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner. 58. P.W.-2 is Anita Ganotra, who is sister of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth. She has supported the case of the victim girl and the F.I.R. by stating during her evidence that Shiv Kumar, Srikant, Indrapal Saini had committed rape upon the victim girl and they used to prepare video and threatened the Victim Girl to show her viral video and rape sexual on TV screen. She has also stated that the victim girl had been administered injection by one Tanushree. She has also named the some petitioners Officer In-charge of MGM P.S. ( i.e. Imdad Ahmad and Ajay Kerketta and Shambhu Trivedi, Laddan, Dinesh Agrawal, Guddu Gupta, Abhibhsek Mishra, Amit, 42 Rajesh, Munna Dhobi, Ajij Mishtry, Karim Cablewala, Munnain, Tasssu, Sahid, Manoj Sahay, Gurpreet Singh, Ajay Kerketta and Imdad Ahmad against from Shiv Kumar, Indrapal Saini, Srikant at para-15, 16 of her evidence. She has also informed about the matter to the City Superintendent of Police in para-29, 30, 31, 34 and 54. She has stated in para-31 and 32 that the victim girl has identified places of crime when the City S. P. had shown her while moving in the Car. 59. During her cross-examination, she has taken the name of all the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and one Tanushree and one Upendra Singh and Sonu Nair and two others in para-47 and 51. She has stated at para- 63 to 66 regarding hospital of doctor. She has further stated about the name of accused persons at para- 131 and 133 of her evidence. Thus, it would appear that she has also supported the evidence of P.W.-3 i.e. the victim girl. 60. P.W.-4 is Mamta Seth, wife of P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth and she has supported the evidence of P.W.-3 (i.e. victim girl) and P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth and has taken the name of the main accused persons in para-4 of her evidence. Thereafter she has taken the name of the petitioners namely Manoj Sahay, Munnain, Rajesh, Gurpreet Singh, Sonu Nair, Ajij Mistry, Tasmis Ahmed, Imdad Ansari, Ajay Kerketta, Guddu Gupta, Dinesh Agrawal, Shahid and Amit Singh in para- 11 to 20, and 37, 38, 39 and 47 and 49. However, her evidence of Para-53 to 54 relates to Place of Occurrence. 61. It transpires from the impugned order that P.W.-5, Dukhni Bhakat has also taken the name of these petitioners of the Criminal Revisions and Cr. M. Ps. and the learned Court below has also relied upon the evidence of P.W.-5, Dukhni Bhagat while 43 issuing summons against the petitioners. 62. It appears from perusal of the para-256 of the case diary that the accused Shiv Kumar Mahto (now convicted) has used 18 mobile sets and 147 SIMS and for which a direction was given by the I.G. (Human Rights) through Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur to the I. O. of this case and 42 points were formulated for making investigation i.e. for proper identification of all the petitioners, for videography of the TIP of the doctor in question and for identification of the accused persons and photographs and for verification of Hotel i.e. Motel Highway, Hotel Highway and Dimna Resort and also to enquire about the arrears of Rs. 2,80,000/- claimed by the accused Indrapal Saini against the P.W.-1, Nanak Chand Seth by verifying his bank account. Even the I.G. has directed for Lie Detector and Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test of the named accused persons in F.I.R. and also verifying the mobile of Tanushree etc., but except Tower location of the mobile numbers, the other directions have not been followed by the I.O. of this case and this shows that the police was not making proper investigation. 63. It further appears from the para-10 of the case diary, which is the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. by the police that she has supported the allegation as made out in the FIR and during her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. for committing rape upon her by the four prime accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Mahato, Indrapal Saini and Shrikant and Laddan. Thereafter during her evidence, she has also made allegation against these petitioners i.e. Shahid, Shambhu Trivedi, Abhishek Mishra, Upendra Singh, Ajij Mishra, Laddan, Sonu Nair, the Officer In-charge of MGM P.S., the police Officer which was being addressed ‘Sir’ by the Officer In-charge and she claimed to have identified all the accused persons for committing rape upon her. 64. Although on the one hand, the victim girl has named so 44 many persons including these petitioners during her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. by the police and on the other hand, while being examined under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 19.01.2018, she has named only three persons, who are named in the FIR and one Laddan, who is petitioner in Cr. M. P. No. 2003 of 2021 . 65. Learned counsel for the petitioners have mainly asserted that in view of the vague allegations without having specific date, time, month and year of commission of rape upon the victim girl by any particular accused –petitioners and delay in lodging the FIR, no charges can be framed and as such, no conviction can be secured against these petitioners and it will be futile to exercise power under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. and to hold trial in absence of prime accused persons. 66. The learned Court below has discussed the law in page- 3 to 13 and 15 of its impugned order dated 08.07.2021 as follows:- “In the recent judgment of Sartaj Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 15 March, 2021 reported in 2021 (5) SCC 337 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of section-319 of Cr.P.C. as follows- "6.1 :-While considering the rival submissions, the law on the scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC is required to be considered and for that few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to. 6.1.1 In Hardeep Singh (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider in detail the scope and ambit of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 319 CrPC, the object and purpose of Section 319 CrPC etc. It is observed in the said decision that the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. It is observed that this is also a part of fair trial and in order to 45 achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporating the provisions of Section 319 CrPC. It is further observed that for the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law has been appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under the Cr.P.C. indicating as to how the Courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is also observed that it is the duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. In Paragraphs 8 and 9, this Court observed and held as under: "8:- The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the used does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the Clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under CrPC indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out 46 the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. 9:- The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent. These competing theories have been kept in mind by the legislature. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in our opinion, in order to achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporating provisions of Section 319 CrPC. It is with the said object in mind that a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does not dilute the intention of the statute conferring powers on the court to carry out the abovementioned avowed object and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the offence that is the subject-matter of trial." 6.1.2:- In the said case, the following five questions fell for consideration before this Court. (i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised? (ii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross- examination or the court can exercise the power under the 47 said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? (iii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted? (v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC extend to persons not named in the FIR named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?" 6.1.3:- While considering the aforesaid questions, this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) observed and held as under: 12:- Section 319 Cr.P.C. springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 13:- It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 Cr.P.C.? 14:- The submissions that were raised before us covered a very wide canvas and the learned counsel have taken us 48 through various provisions of Cr.P.C. and the judgments that have been relied on for the said purpose. The controversy centres around the stage at which such powers can be invoked by the court and the material on the basis whereof such powers can be exercised. Xxx xxx xxx 17:- Section 319 Cr. P .C. allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. Thus, the person against whom summons are issued in exercise of such powers, has to necessarily not be an accused already facing trial. He can either be a person named in Column 2 of the charge-sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a person whose name has been disclosed in any material before the court that is to be considered for the purpose of trying the offence, but not investigated. He has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence. 18:- The legislature cannot be presumed to have imagined all the circumstances and, therefore, it is the duty of the court to give full effect to the words used by the legislature so as to encompass any situation which the court may have to tackle while proceeding to try an offence and not allow a person who deserves to be tried to go scot-free by being not arraigned in the trial in spite of the possibility of his complicity which can be gathered from the documents presented by the prosecution. 19:- The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of Law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by 49 manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence. xxx xxx xxx 22:-In our opinion, Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial. It is this part which is under reference before this Court and therefore in our opinion, while answering the question referred to herein, we do not find any conflict so as to delve upon the situation that was dealt with by this Court in Dharam Pal (CB) [Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana. (2014) 3 SCC 306: AIR 2013 SC 3018). xxx xxx xxx 47:- Since after the filing of the charge-sheet, the court reaches the stage of inquiry and as soon as the court frames the charges, the trial commences, and therefore, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 Cr.P.C., committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage, intended to put the process into motion. This stage cannot be said to be a judicial step in the true sense for it only requires an application of mind rather than a judicial application of mind. At this pre-trial stage, the Magistrate is required to perform acts in the nature of administrative work rather than judicial such as ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, and committing the matter if it 50 is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it would be legitimate for us to conclude that the Magistrate at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 CrPC is forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 CrPC, to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Session. xxx xxx xxx 53:- It is thus aptly clear that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised. In fact, this proposition does not seem to have been disturbed by the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB) [Dharam Pal v.