Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2009 Date of Order: 16.01.2009 Chattar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Prayer in this petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, refusing to summon respondents No. 1, to stand trial with the already arraigned accused. Heard. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the trial court after considering the contents of the FIR, the statements made before the police and the deposition in Court recorded a considered opinion that respondent no.1 cannot be summoned to stand trial, in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the facts put forth by the prosecution, respondent No.1- Kulwant Singh, facilitated a meeting between the deceased and the other accused. During this meeting, Jagjit Singh accused inflicted a 'Kirch' blow on the person of deceased Balwinder Singh leading to his demise. The sole allegation against Kulwant Singh is that he arranged the meeting, that Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2009 -2- lead to the death of Balwinder Singh and, therefore, conspired to murder the deceased. The learned trial court after considering the material on record, rightly held that there is no evidence on record to support the allegations levelled as Kulwant Singh, merely arranged a meeting between the feuding parties. The unfortunate incident that lead to the demise of Balwinder Singh would not be sufficient to draw an inference, that Kulwant Singh conspired with the accused to murder Kulwant singh. Furthermore, in the absence of any material to draw an inference of conspiracy, the discretion exercised by the court below, in dismissing the application, filed under Section 319 of the code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. Dismissed. January 16, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE