IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-568 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.2.2010 Kanwaljit Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Dheeraj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present petition is for quashing of order dated 15.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in FIR No. 656 dated 12.8.1997 under Sections 420/467/468/471/114/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Butana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of additional accused namely, Balkar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Bharat Singh has been dismissed. FIR No.656 dated 12.8.1997 under Sections 420/467/468/471/114/120-B IPC was registered at the instance of petitioner Kanwaljit Singh. All the accused were challaned except Balkar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Bharat Singh who were kept in column No.2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Balkar Singh, Manmohan Singh and Bharat Singh as additional accused which was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts have not taken into consideration that a prima facie case was made out for summoning of respondents No. 2 to 4 as additional accused as they were Crl.Misc. No.M-568 of 2010 [2] involved in criminal conspiracy for forging the General Power of Attorney and selling of 12 Kanals of land belonging to the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the orders passed by both the Courts. There is no illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below as there is no evidence against the respondents to show that prima facie case was made out against them. Moreover, respondent No.3 Manmohan Singh is the witness of the sale deed dated 27.1.1983. The liability of the attesting witness is only to the extent of execution of document. There is limited scope in the revision to interfere as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pin-point any evidence against them for summoning as additional accused. Moreover, civil suit is pending between the parties at Karnal. There is neither any allegation against the respondents nor any evidence to connect them with the alleged fraud. The main accused have already been challaned. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 23, 2010. raghav