IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.1467 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 30, 2010 BALJINDER KAUR ALIAS BIMLA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. KS Chahal, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The complainant has approached this Court in challenge to order dated 15.5.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. Vide the impugned order, the revision petition of Sampuran Singh, Kamlesh and Indro Bai (respondents No.2 to 4 herein) has been allowed and order dated 12.1.2009, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, has been set aside, whereby the above named three persons had been summoned to stand trial as additional accused, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has pointed out Criminal Rev. No.1467 of 2009 2 that the revisional court has proceeded on the premise that PW-1 Baljinder Kaur (complainant) and PW-2 Gurnam Singh had not been cross- examined and, therefore, their statements could not have been considered for exercising jurisdiction under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. The complete statement of PW-1 has been placed on record as Annexures P-3 and P-10. While Annexure P-3 is the examination-in-chief of Baljinder Kaur, examined as PW-1, Annexure P-10 is the cross- examination of the said witness. Similarly, the complete statement of PW- 2 has been placed on record as Annexures P-4 and P-11. While Annexure P-4 is the examination-in-chief of Gurnam Singh, examined as PW-2, Annexure P-11 is the cross-examination of the said witness. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has not been able to dispute this fact. Considering the fact that complete statements of PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. including their cross-examination, have not been considered by the revisional court, the petition is allowed. Order dated 15.5.2009 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of Sessions, Fatehabad, to enable it to re-adjudicate the issue, after considering the complete statements of Baljinder Kaur (PW-1) and Gurnam Singh (PW-2) i.e. including the cross-examination of the said witnesses. Till the decision is rendered by the revisional court, the order of summoning shall remain stayed. In view of the delay already caused, the revisional court is requested to deal with the matter and pass a final order, in the context of application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, within a Criminal Rev. No.1467 of 2009 3 period of 2 months from today. The parties are required to put in appearance before the Court of Sessions, Fatehabad, for addressing arguments on 21.4.2010. March 30, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?