CRR-1464-2011 (O&M) - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1464-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:12.07.2011. Guddy ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 09.05.2011 by which an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] for summoning the accused Guddy (petitioner) has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she was empty handed and only lalkara has been attributed to her, whereas it has come in evidence that the deceased had died due to heart attack. In this regard, he has made reference to the various orders passed by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused. However, in the present case, Sanjiv Kumar (PW4), Nitu Kumari (PW5) and Tripta (PW7) have categorically deposed about the role of the petitioner at the time of commission of offence. The learned Trial Court, while summoning the petitioner, has observed that she had participated in the crime by raising a lalkara that the complainant party should be taught a lesson on the basis of which the Trial Court had ordered for her summoning for the purpose of facing trial. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record available with the Court, I have found that there is no error committed CRR-1464-2011 (O&M) - 2 - ***** by the learned Trial Court in passing the impugned order because for the purpose of summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court has to depend upon the witnesses which has been recorded. In the present case, three witnesses, namely Sanjiv Kumar (PW4), Nitu Kumari (PW5) and Tripta (PW7) have categorically stated that the petitioner had exhorted the accused to open an attack as a result of which the complainant party had suffered injuries and one of them had also died. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 12, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE