Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 13.08.2010 Sukhjeet Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Preetwinder Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 8.2.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa vide which the revision petition filed by respondents No.2 to 5 against the summoning order dated 16.7.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Budhlada, was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was sufficient ground and specific allegations against the accused but the same have not been taken into consideration and the revision filed by respondents No.2 to 5 has wrongly been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is the discretion of the trial Court to examine the evidence including the statement of complainant and other witnesses at the time of summoning and on the basis of that evidence JMIC, Budhlada has passed the summoning order but the revisional Court has not taken into consideration the same while allowing the revision of respondents No.2 to 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 2010 (2) gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. In the present case, application for summoning as an additional accused was moved, which was allowed by JMIC, Budhlada vide its order dated 16.7.2009. Respondents No.2 to 5 preferred revision petition against order dated 16.7.2009 before Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa and the same was allowed vide order dated 8.2.2010, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that neither the statement of the complainant nor statements of other witnesses have been taken into consideration by the revisional Court, has no merit. As per finding given by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, it has specifically been mentioned that only on the basis of general allegations, the summoning order has been passed as demand of Rs.2 lakh was made by all the accused. No specific demand was raised and the summoning order cannot be passed only on the basis of general allegations. Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides for summoning of an additional accused, when it appears to the Court that the person called for can be convicted. In the present case, no such ground is there and the statement of the complainant is only reiteration of her earlier statement, which cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the above, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. August 13, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 2010 (3)