Crl. Misc. No. M-29381 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-29381 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2011 Awani Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 10th November, 2010, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, whereby application preferred by complainant (petitioner herein) for summoning additional accused, namely Neetu Gupta, was dismissed and order passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision petition against the said order. Learned counsel submits that during the course of trial, the complainant stepped into witness-box as PW2. He clearly stated in his deposition that Neetu Gupta, who is daughter of co-accused Surender Gupta, was present at the time when money was handed over for sending the complainant abroad. According to him, name of Neetu Gupta figures in the statement of PW2 at number of places which shows that she was also involved in the commission of crime. Thus, the trial court committed a grave error in refusing to summon her as additional Crl. Misc. No. M-29381 of 2011 2 accused and revisional court also dismissed the revision without taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. FIR was lodged by complainant Awani Kumar stating therein that accused had given him an allurement that he would be sent abroad, as the company being run by them was expert in said job. They demanded Rs.18.00 lacs for his placement, passport, visa, tickets etc. Various amounts of money totaling Rs.15.00 lacs were paid by the complainant. Same were counted by Surender Gupta and handed over to his daughter Neetu Gupta. After FIR was lodged, investigation ensued. The investigating agency presented challan against two accused, namely Surender Gupta and Narender Gupta but found that Neetu Gupta had no role to play in the commission of crime. The trial proceeded thereafter. Admittedly, prosecution evidence is already over and case is at the stage of defence evidence. The complainant stepped into witness-box as PW2 on 16.10.2010 and reiterated the version given by him initially. The instant application for summoning additional accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner on the basis of testimony of said witness. However, same was declined by the Magistrate. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. However, same was also dismissed. A perusal of the statement of the witness PW2 shows that Crl. Misc. No. M-29381 of 2011 3 he has merely reiterated the version given by him initially. Thereafter, thorough investigation appears to have been conducted into the matter and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that the additional accused, sought to be summoned, had no role to play in the commission of crime. On a query being put to the learned counsel whether there is any evidence to show that Neetu Gupta was a partner in the firm/ company being run by the accused for sending people abroad, he fairly submits that there is nothing on record to that effect. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the parameters laid down in Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262 are not met for the purpose of summoning Neetu Gupta as additional accused. The petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.9.2011 'rajpal'