CRM No. M-18628 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18628 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: November 07, 2011 Rani @ Davinder Kaur & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 10th August, 2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, whereby they have been summoned to face trial in exercise of power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after thorough investigation, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that petitioners were not guilty and thus, were placed in column No.2 in the final report submitted before the court. However, the trial court after considering the same, decided to summon the rest of the accused (petitioners herein) to face trial. According to counsel, this power could have been exercised by the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only after some evidence had been led before it. Thus, order is palpably wrong and deserves to be set-aside. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed CRM No. M-18628 of 2010 2 the prayer. He submits that trial court has passed a reasoned order. It has taken into consideration the material on record before directing summoning of rest of the accused. While referring to same, he submits that the petitioners had been named in the statement of the complainant who had attributed specific injuries to them. Similar statement was made before the investigating agency. Thus trial court rightly decided to summon them to face trial. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that on statement of one Tarlok Singh, FIR was registered against eight persons under Sections 452, 379, 427, 324, 323, 148 & 149 IPC at Police Station Kahnuwan. The accused in said case also suffered injuries and lodged a cross case. They alleged that they had been assaulted by the petitioners and other accused. Baljit Singh complainant in the cross version stated that on 12th September, 2007 he alongwith his son Gur Davinder Singh was cutting fodder at about 7.00 P.M when they were assaulted by petitioners. Various injuries were caused to them. An investigation ensued. The investigating agency came to the conclusion that injuries were caused by accused Tarlok Singh, Malook Singh and Narinder Singh and thus presented challan against them. However, it found that Rani alias Davinder Kaur, Hardev Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Banti alias Jagdish and Bhola alias Davinder Singh (petitioners herein) were innocent and submitted its report accordingly. Challan was submitted on 3rd October, 2008 for commission of offence under Sections 324, 323, 148 & 149 IPC. After CRM No. M-18628 of 2010 3 considering the material accompanying the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the trial court came to the conclusion that specific injuries had been attributed to accused, who had been kept in column No.2 by the investigating agency. Thus, it decided to summon them to face trial. Aggrieved, they have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of said order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that additional accused have been summoned to face trial on the basis of injuries attributed by the complainant and the medico-legal report regarding the same. It appears that there was no fresh material before the court after presentation of challan which would warrant summoning of additional accused. Admittedly, summoning has been directed at a stage when only final report had been submitted before the court below under Section 173 Cr.P.C. No other material had come on record to point to guilt of accused mentioned in column No.2 of the report. I am of the considered view that the impugned order in the instant case deserves to be set-aside. This court does not feel the necessity of examining the powers of the trial court under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Needless to observe, in case any fresh evidence comes on record, the trial court would be within its power to summon any other additional accused. The impugned order is, thus, set-aside and the petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 07, 2011 'rajpal'