Criminal Misc. No. M-29968 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-29968 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.10.2009 Bhupinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Bhupinder Singh, Boor Singh @ Balla, Gurjant Singh, Ajmer Singh, Nishan Singh, Jagsir Singh and Balraj Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.191 dated 14.11.2008 registered under Sections 307/148/149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Malout District Muktsar as well as the summoning order dated 18.9.2009 (Annexure P.6) with all consequent and incidental proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar qua the petitioners, whereby they have been summoned as additional accused in an application Annexure P.4 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C on the mere partial and incomplete examination-in-chief of complainant, which version has already been found to be patently false in detailed inquiry report (Annexure P.2). Criminal Misc. No. M-29968 of 2009 (O&M) -2- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of mechanical bald statement of respondent No.2 – Ranjodh Singh who has merely reiterated the version recorded in the FIR, the prosecution has moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C with the malafide intention to harass the petitioners at the behest of the complainant party. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind by the learned trial Court. He has further canvassed at the bar that without even completing the examination-in-chief, the application of the prosecution moved under Section 319 of Cr.P.C has been allowed. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations rendered in re: Dharambir and another v. State of Haryana, 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 219 and Paramvir @ Happy v. State of Haryana, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 408. He has further submitted that he does not press this petition qua the quashing of the FIR. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. A meticulous perusal of Annexure P.3 would reveal that while the examination-in-chief of this witness was being recorded, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C was moved by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further examination-in-chief was deferred. The learned trial Court on the basis of partly recorded examination-in-chief allowed this application vide impugned order dated 18.9.2009 (Annexure P.6). In re: Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(2) Recent Criminal Criminal Misc. No. M-29968 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Reports (Criminal) 762, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “12. The trial Judge, as noticed by us, in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to arrive at his satisfaction. If he thought that the matter should receive his due consideration only after the cross- examination of the witnesses is over, no exception thereto could be taken far less at the instance of a witness and when the State was not aggrieved by the same. 13. From the decisions of this Court, as noticed above, it is evident that before a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at inter alia upon completion of the cross- examination of the said witness. For the said purpose, the court concerned may also like to consider other evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.” In view of the above extracted observations, the application moved under Section 319 of Cr.P.C could be considered only on conclusion of cross-examination of the witness, whereas as noted supra, the examination-in-chief of Ranjodh Singh was being recorded, when such an Criminal Misc. No. M-29968 of 2009 (O&M) -4- application was moved. Furthermore, a glance through the impugned order would reveal that the satisfaction as laid down by the Apex Court has not been recorded by the learned trial Court. Such being the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to re- consider the said application upon completion of the examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination of Ranjodh Singh PW. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua the quashing of FIR. October 26, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE