IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.626 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 05, 2011 Dharambir .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the applicant- petitioner. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition challenges order dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial as additional accused. 2. The FIR mentions the names of certain accused specifically while ascribing specific role to them. The allegations in FIR are in following terms:- Criminal Revision No.626 of 2009 [2] “...... The time was around 8 P.M. When I was returning from the house of Rajender and was going to my own house and when I had reached near the Paras (Chaupal) of the village then suddenly one boy stated that Krishan come immediately Ram Kawar had come and Krishan s/o Om Parkash, Bhagmal s/o Ramu and Sombir s/o Dalip and Sattal alias Dalip and one more person (had come) and these five persons started giving me beatings jointly. Sattal alias Dalip and Sombir were carrying bricks in their hands and they had struck the same in my chest and Krishan and Bhagmal had given BOXING (fist blows) on my abdomen, chest and face. I raised alarm for being saved then my son Manoj had reached the spot as he had come to the shop for purchasing goods and my wife Ramdei had also reached the spot on hearing the alarm and they rescued me from the assailants otherwise they would have given me more beatings. While going away, they were saying that today you have been saved and that subsequently (in future) we shall murder you.” 3. After examination of PW-1 Ram Kumar, in Court on oath, an application for summoning the petitioner was filed which has been allowed. In Para 11 of the order, it has been mentioned that the prosecution relied on the statement of witness, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to say that in the complaint “one boy” is stated to have given lalkara i.e. petitioner. Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, make it evident that it was the petitioner who gave lalkara and participated in the incident. It was after lalkara had been given by the petitioner that accused came and inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. On strength of such evidence, it has been pleaded on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner actively participated in the incident. On such material, the petitioner has been summoned as additional accused. 4. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No.626 of 2009 [3] have not been placed on record for perusal and consideration of this Court. On a query of the Court, this Court has been informed that the case is at defence evidence stage. The trial has almost concluded. The Trial Court has considered relevant material before passing order of summoning. In revisional jurisdiction, no illegality or impropriety therein can be traced. 5. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?