IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision 1093 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 ARUN KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS HAWA SINGH & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.JS Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chankya Pandit, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.1.2007, passed by Special Judge, Karnal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-complainant was allowed for summoning Jagwati and Subhash Chand. The application for summoning Hawa Singh (respondent No.1), however, was not allowed, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was later that the petitioner realized that it was on the conspiracy of respondent No.1 that the petitioner was called at the place of incident and multiple injuries were caused. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the impugned order came to be considered by this Court in Criminal Revision Criminal Revision 1093 of 2007 2 315 of 2007 (Subhash Chand and another v. State of Haryana). The impugned order has already been upheld by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2007. In regard to the role of the petitioner, the trial court has considered the issue in para-8, which reads as under:- “8. So far as Hawa Singh son of Shri Chandrup is concerned, in the application Ex.P2 there are no allegations against him for entering into a criminal conspiracy or participating in the incident. His mere presence on the spot at the time of incident would not prove his involvement. It is pertinent to mention that in the application Ex.P2 the complainant himself preferred not to array him (Hawa Singh) as an accused nor in his application he levelled any such allegations against him to prove his involvement in any way in the crime. So, the statement of complainant later on involving him in the present incident is just an after thought and cannot be relied upon. It has been held by the Division bench of Delhi High Court in Kishori vs. State 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 555 that power under section 319 Cr.P.C. not be exercised in routine. Power should be exercised sparingly and a reasoned order be passed to summon an additional accused. Since the complainant himself levelled no allegations against Hawa Singh, so the statement of the complainant against Hawa Singh in the Court is just an after thought and cannot be relied upon to prove the involvement of Hawa Singh in the crime. This case relates to the incident dated 14.7.2005 and relating to this incident there are no allegations against Hawa Singh, as such he cannot be summoned as an additional accused.” On a perusal of the above reproduced portion, I find that there is proper application of mind by the trial court. Relevant aspects of the Criminal Revision 1093 of 2007 3 case have been considered viz. in application, Exhibit P-2, the complainant has not arrayed respondent No.1 as an accused nor any allegations were made in regard to his involvement. Subsequently, in the statement, allegations have been made against respondent No.1, which were a result of an afterthought and, therefore, the complainant, in this regard, was not reliable. I have also noticed that the impugned order has been considered in revisional jurisdiction in regard to the other accused by this Court and the order has been upheld. No ground for interference is made out in revisional jurisdiction as I do not find any impropriety in the findings recorded by the trial court. Dismissed. September 16, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE