IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.7684-M of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 SUBHASH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate, for respondents 2 & 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The complainant of FIR No.64 dated 14.5.2003 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 148, 149, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, has filed this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, against order of revisional court dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) whereby the revision petition of respondents No.2 and 3 has been allowed and order dated 14.5.2003, passed by the trial Court summoning respondents No.2 and 3 to face trial under Sections 323, 324, 34, Indian Penal Code, has been set aside. The complainant had filed an application for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. I have gone through the impugned order. Criminal Misc.7684-M of 2006 2 A perusal of para-8 of the impugned order indicates that the revisional court has taken into account that the complainant, in the FIR version, had not named respondents No.2 and 3; respondents No.2 and 3 were known to the complainant, being related; none of the eye witnesses to the occurrence or injured in their statements recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, had named respondents No.2 and 3 as the assailants, the complainant had taken the stand against respondents No.2 and 3, for the first time, in court; the complainant had improved his case substantially so as to involve respondents No.2 and 3 just to pressurize the accused-party for favourable settlement; the complainant had nowhere attributed specific injuries to respondents No.2 and 3 and only their presence had been shown even in the improved version in court. The revisional court has come to the correct conclusion that the trial court has passed the order of summoning without any plausible reason and only mechanically. Respondents No.2 and 3 were not summoned to stand trial for achieving criminal justice. Since no fault can be found with the reasoning as recorded in the impugned order, there is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. September 1, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE