IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-5559 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 29.10.2009 Kaushalaya Devi ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution assisted by the complainant for summoning Nirmal Vashisht son of Lachman Dass and Deepal son of Darshan Vashisht as additional accused, has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner belongs to Haryana. The FIR was registered in Punjabi and, therefore, she was not aware of the contents of the FIR and had accordingly signed the same. He further contends that for the same occurrence on the basis of which the present FIR was recorded, the petitioner had preferred a complaint (Annexure P-7) before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana Crl.Misc.No.M-5559 of 2009 (O&M) -2- under Sections 307/452/323/148/149 IPC. In the said complaint, the two above-named i.e. Nirmal Vashisht and Deepak had been arrayed as respondents. He states that the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court as PW-2. She had categorically stated that both the accused, namely, Nirmal Vashisht and Deepak accompanied the main accused Anil Kumar at the place of occurrence and had actively participated in the commission of the offence. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant, counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the same cannot be sustained as all ingredients as provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the respondents as additional accused stand fulfilled. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued that the FIR clearly indicates that the same was read over to her and she admitted that the said statement was correct and accordingly signed the same. The recording of the FIR and putting in of the signatures on the FIR was witnessed by one Bahadur Singh. On this basis, it is contended that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the FIR, cannot be accepted. It is their further submission that except for the statement which has been made by the petitioner as PW-2 before the trial Court, all the statements which have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses by the prosecution do not find mention or indicate that the respondents Nirmal Vashisht or Deepak were involved in the case in any manner. They submit that it is just an afterthought and an improvement made by the petitioner while Crl.Misc.No.M-5559 of 2009 (O&M) -3- deposing before the trial Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the FIR, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-4, clearly indicates that the statement was recorded and read over to the petitioner who admitted the correctness of the same and then signed the same. The said statement and admission of factum of its correctness was witnessed by one Bahadur Singh and attested by ASI Bhagwan Dass, Police Station City Samana. The contention, therefore, of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the recording of the FIR as per the statement of the petitioner cannot be accepted. That apart no evidence has been collected by the prosecution nor any witness, while making statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Agency, has directly or indirectly involved the respondents Nirmal Vashisht and Deepak in the commission of the offence. It is only the statement of the petitioner as PW-2 before the trial Court which now indicates the involvement of Nirmal Vashisht and Deepak. The reasons and the findings as recorded by the trial Court are fully justified and based upon the records of the case. The order dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. October 29, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE