Crl. Revision No. 2848 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2848 of 2009 Date of Decision:July 16, 2010 Parkash Singh and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition has been preferred by Parkash Singh, Sansar Singh, Rajesh Kumar alias Minta, Dalbir Singh alias Billa and Kashmir Singh alias Kala, petitioners, against the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge ( Ad hoc), Gurdaspur, vide which they had been summoned as additional accused to stand their trial along with the already arranged accuses- Crl. Revision No. 2848 of 2009 -2- Gian Singh @ Gian and Simranjit Kaur @ Rekha. FIR No. 84 dated 7.6.2006 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was got recorded by Nirmal Kaur, mother of Gurjinder Singh, deceased, in Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur. She narrated therein that the deceases was not having good relations with his wife-Simranjit Kaur @ Rekha. They had shifted to Ludhiana, where he had been working in a factory. On 5.6.2006, they came to the village to meet her. In the intervening period, she shifted the household goods of Simranjit Kaur to some other room and stored the grains in her room. On that account she started fighting with her and the deceased. She gave a telephonic call to her parents at 11-00 p.m. Her father Gian Singh, his brother Parkash Chand, Kala, Sansar Chand and Chinda came to their house in a car and two motor cycles and started abusing the deceased. Nirmal Singh requested them not to use abusive language. They gave a threat to teach a lesson to them and took away Simranjit Kaur with them. Thereafter, they threatened the deceased on his mobile phone and told him that they will make his life worst. They also challenged why he was handing over his earnings to his parents. On the next day, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling fan. The matter was investigated and after the completion of the investigation, only Gian Singh and Simranjit Kaur were challaned whereas the manes of Parkash Singh, Sansar Singh Minta, Billa and Kala were mentioned in column No. 2 of police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that they were found to be innocent. The accused, who were so challaned, Crl. Revision No. 2848 of 2009 -3- were charged with offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined Nirmal Kaur- complainant, as PW-1 and thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed, vide the aforesaid order, and the petitioners were summoned as additional accused. On notice having been issued, State cousnel has appeared and contested the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The impugned order has been challenged by counsel for the petitioners on two grounds. One of the ground pressed by him is that no such finding has been recorded by the trial court that there are reasonable prospects of the conviction of the petitioners on the basis of the statement of the complainant, so recorded in the Court. In support of that arguments he has relied upon Micheal Machado and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000(2) RCR(Criminal)75. It has been held by the Apex Court in the above referred case that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be exercised sparingly and with due caution and circumspect. The evidence produced before the Court should be such so as to sustain the conviction of the persons summoned as additional accused. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no such satisfaction was recorded by the trial court while summoning the additional accused, though it referred to the statement of the complainant and the order was passed on the basis thereof. It was Crl. Revision No. 2848 of 2009 -4- required to record the reasons for passing that order. Such a finding of the Court, which materially effects the individual liberty must be supported by some reasons. Any such order without such reasoning cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the above said proposition of law and to record the reasons in support of the finding to be recorded. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 16, 2010 PARAMJIT