IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1183 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2011 Mangal Sain .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition challenges order dated 18.3.2011 whereby an application filed by the prosecution for summoning two additional accused has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel contends that although names of all the five accused were given in the FIR, however, police officials intentionally did not record the names. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 4. It is not in dispute that FIR was lodged on Crl. Revision No.1183 of 2011 [2] 14.6.2008 while naming three persons. All the three persons have been nominated as accused and are standing trial. Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given by other eye-witness also does not mention the names of two persons, sought to be summoned as additional accused. It remains the admitted position that application was given on 27.8.2008 naming the two persons, sought to be summoned as additional accused. This circumstance and fact has been taken into account by the Trial Court while recording a finding that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be allowed. 5. In revisional jurisdiction, I find no error in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and therefore, there is no cause to interfere. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 12, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?