IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 131 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 Ramu .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 17.9.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby learned Sessions Judge has declined the prayer of the complainant/prosecution to summon Paramjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that statement of PW-1 in the present case is that Paramjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa had conspired to eliminate the Happy (deceased); It does not conspire confidence and is quite vague and on that basis Paramjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa can not be said as conspirators to commit murder of the deceased Happy. Crl. Rev. No. 131 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Now it is settled position of law that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be invoked very rarely only when strong case is made out to summon a person as an additional accused. Mere suspicion will not give rise any jurisdiction to the trial Court to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. Since in the present case trial Court has specifically observed that statement of PW-1 could not prove prima facie involvement of Paramjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa as conspirators, I do not find any reason to take contrary view. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 21.01.2011 JUDGE reena