Criminal Rev. No. 938 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev. No. 938 of 2009 Date of Decision:December 03, 2010 Nirmal Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Anil Chawla,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab None for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) challenging order dated 8.8.2008 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) in case FIR No.111 dated 20.4.2005 registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran as an additional accused on an application moved by the applicant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) The contents of the FIR, as reproduced in para 2 of the ground of revision, read as under:- “Statement of Sukhdev Singh s/o Tara Singh caste Mehra- Criminal Rev. No. 938 of 2009 2 Sikh resident of Gali Rashpal Singh Wali Mohalla Guru Nanksar, Jandiala Road Tarn Taran, police station City Tarn Taran age 36 years States that I am the resident of above mentioned address and doing the business of tea selling in front of the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. My landlord Santokh Singh son of Ishar Singh is resident of Tata Nagar Jamshedpur. My landlord Santokh Singh is often visits the house of Rajinder Kumar son of Sai Dass resident of opposite Civil Hospital Tarn Taran. I have come to know that Santokh Singh had sold the shop in connivance with Rajinder Singh and Natha Singh resident of Manav Chahal to some one and now Rajinder Kumar above mentioned and Natha Singh wants to get vacated my shop. On 17.04.2005, I closed my shop and put the locks and went and on 18.4.2005 in the morning when I came to my shop I saw locks of my shops were broken and all the articles were scattered I counted my articles and I found one Govt. Electric Meter, Gas Stove, one Cylinder, one child- cycle, one Stove, Two Utensils and Rs.1200/- from cash box were stolen and Lakha Singh above mentioned resident of Manav Chahal alongwith other unidentified persons have broken locks of my shop and thrown out the articles and have written on the shop “articles have been stolen”. When I was coming to inform this, you met. Statement is recorded. The same is heard and correct. I am resident of the above mentioned address, Sd/- Sukhdev Singh dated 20.4.2005 attested by Ashwani Kumar, ASI, Police Station City Tarn Taran dated 20.4.2005.” Criminal Rev. No. 938 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the complainant had made the statement that Rajinder Singh and Lakha Singh along with some unidentified persons had broken locks of his shop and had thrown away articles from the shop. The said persons had also stolen articles from the shop. While appearing in the Court on 22.1.2007, the complainant stated that he believed that all the articles from his shop has been stolen by Rajinder Singh, Lakha Singh and Nirmal Singh. He had got recorded his statement before the Police. Accused was present in the Court. Lakha Singh had stolen his articles. Stolen articles were recovered from Lakha Singh. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case as, in fact, the complainant is the tenant of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no reasons have been given while allowing the application moved by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The witnesses, whose statements were recorded during investigation qua the involvement of the petitioner, have not been examined during trial so far. In these circumstances, it was not appropriate to allow the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. From the impugned order, it is not also clear as to whether the application moved by the complainant was forwarded by the public prosecutor. In a State case, all the necessary applications are required to be filed by the Public Prosecutor. It has also been wrongly held in the order that from the perusal of the statement of the complainant made to the police, specific attribution had been made against the petitioner, whereas, a perusal of Annexure P1 reveals that no attribution Criminal Rev. No. 938 of 2009 4 was made against the petitioner by the complainant. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.2008 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. ( Sabina ) Judge December 03, 2010 arya