Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 1. Narain Dutt Sharma son of Sh. Ram Murti r/o village Munar, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala. 2. Malook Singh @ Malooka son of Shingara Singh, r/o village Dhirpur, P.S. Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar. 3. Hardev Singh @ Debi son of Sh. Resham Singh, r/o village Dhirpur, P.S. Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar. 4. Varun Sharma @ Billu son of Sh. Ram Murti, r/o village Munar, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab 2. Sandeep Singh son of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, r/o village Dialpur, Distt. Kapurthala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 2 order dated 02.09.08, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, the petitioners, were summoned, as additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 69, dated 10.07.04, under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, and, 506 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Sandeep Singh, complainant, got recorded the aforesaid FIR, on the allegations, that on 05.07.04, in the evening, he was present, in his house, when a co-villager Satnam Singh @ Sama son of Gurmail Singh, caste Jat, resident of village Dayalpur, Police Station Subhanpur/Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, came there, and was told to accompany him, to village Bhagwanpur, to deliver a message. Consequently, Sandeep Singh, agreed to accompany Satnam Singh, to Bhagwanpur, and when they reached near the tubewell of Sartaj, between village Bholath and Pandori, at about 8.30 PM, one Kawasaki motorcycle, came from the opposite side. The said motorcycle was being ridden by Narain Dutt son of Ram Murti Sharma, and Malook Singh @ Malooka, resident of village Deerpur, was sitting, on the pillion thereof, armed with kirpan and kirch. One white Tata Safari, also came there, which was being driven by Hardev Singh @ Debi son of Resham Singh. Saravjit Singh @ Sebi son of Kundan Singh, Varun Sharma, Jallu son of Ram Murti, and, Rajwinder Singh @ Raja son of Resham Singh, were also sitting, in the said Tata Safari, armed with gandasis. There were other 5/6 unidentified boys, who were armed with dangs Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 3 and kirpans. It was stated that, thereafter, the aforesaid accused, caused fatal injuries, on the person of Sandeep Singh, with deadly weapons, they were carrying, as a result whereof, he raised an alarm, which attracted Saravjit Singh @ Sebi and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, who saved him, from their clutches. Thereafter, all accused, fled from the spot alongwith their respective weapons and vehicles. It was further stated that, the main reason for the aforesaid occurrence, was that, on 25.11.03, the complainant, had a quarrel with Varun Sharma, wherein, a case under Section 326 IPC, Police Station Subhanpur, was registered, and he (complainant), was released on bail. But, thereafter, he started getting threats from the accused, that they would settle score with him. 3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, summoned the petitioners, as additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant, petition, has been filed by the accused-petitioners. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted, that the first information report, was registered, against the petitioner, and the other co-petitioners. He has further submitted that, after thorough investigation, the investigating agency, came to the conclusion, that the petitioners, were innocent, and, they were not challaned. He has further submitted that, in pursuance of the application, filed under Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 4 Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioners, were summoned, as additional accused, to face trial. He has further submitted that the Court below, did not record satisfaction, that the evidence produced, by the prosecution, could reasonably lead to the conviction of the accused. He has further submitted that the order impugned, was passed, without application of mind. He has further submitted that the complainant, only reiterated the allegations, which were contained, in the first information report, at the time of appearing, as a witness, after framing the charge, against the co-petitioners (non-applicants), who were challaned. He has further submitted that the order impugned, thus, was liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the trial Court, after going through the evidence of Sandeep Singh, PW1, complainant-cum-injured, in this case, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the petitioners, actively participated, in the commission of crime. They have further submitted that the order impugned, thus, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt, the investigating agency, after investigation, came to the conclusion, that the petitioners, were innocent, and, thus, they were not challaned. The mere fact, that the investigating agency, came to such a conclusion, does not mean, that Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 5 the Court, is powerless to summon the additional accused, if, from the independent evidence, produced in the Court, it comes to the conclusion, that they participated, in the commission of crime. When Sandeep Singh, appeared, as PW1, in the Court, it was stated by him, that Narain Dutt, petitioner No. 1, gave a kirch blow, on the left side of his chest, Malook Singh, petitioner No. 2, gave a blow with kirpan, near his left knee, Hardev Singh, petitioner No. 3, gave a blow with kirpan, resulting into chopping of the right hand, from near his (Sandeep Singh's) wrist, and, Varun Sharma, petitioner No. 4, gave a blow with his kirpan, hitting his left hand. From the evidence of Sandeep Singh, complainant-cum-injured, it was established, that the petitioners, were allegedly armed with lethal weapons and actively participated, in the commission of crime. The Court below, recorded the findings, that there was sufficient evidence, on the record, that the accused, caused injuries, on the person of the complainant, with the weapons, being held by them, and, as such, they were liable to be summoned, for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, and, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. In the face of the evidence of Sandeep Singh, PW1, referred to above, in my considered opinion, the Court below, did not commit any illegality or irregularity, in summoning the petitioners, as additional accused. The order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. 9. The Counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance, Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 6 on Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(3), RCR (Criminal), 388, and, Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1), RCR (Criminal), 504, in support of his contention that, on the basis of the evidence of Sandeep Singh, referred to above, it could not be said, that there was reasonable possibility of the conviction of the petitioners. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In Sarabjit Singh and another's case (supra), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that a person, should not be summoned, to face trial, if prima-facie case, is made out, against him. It was further held, that a person, should be summoned only, if the Court finds that the evidence, on record, is such, which would reasonably lead to conviction of a person sought to be summoned as an accused. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another's case (supra). There is, no dispute, with the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. In the instant case, specific roles, in the commission of crime, were attributed, to the petitioners, by Sandeep Singh, in his statement. All the petitioners, were armed with lethal weapons, as stated above. They caused injuries, on the person of Sandeep Singh, complainant-cum-injured. On account of the injuries, caused by them, the hand of Sandeep Singh, was chopped of. Under these circumstances, the evidence, produced by the prosecution, in the shape of the statement of Sandeep Singh, in my considered opinion, could reasonably lead to the conviction of the accused. No help, Criminal Misc. No. M-25563 of 2009 7 therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioners, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition for quashing the order dated 02.09.08, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, the petitioners, were summoned, as additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 69, dated 10.07.04, under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, and, 506 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala, is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 21.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE