IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13035 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 21, 2008 Gurnam Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners in the present case have approached this Court aggrieved against the manner in which the trial is being conducted by the Court below. The petitioners are accused in FIR No.77 dated 27.5.2005, registered under Sections 148/149/323/302 IPC at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in the present case are already accused in the above FIR. At the time of presentation of challan it was mentioned that supplementary challan against them will be presented later on after their arrest as they were absconding. However, on an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated May 23, 2007 the petitioners were directed to be summoned. In fact, that application itself was not maintainable. While accepting the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Court below directed for filing of challan against the Criminal Misc. No. M-13035 of 2008 -2- petitioners. On account of these procedural irregularities, prejudice is caused to the petitioners. It is a case in which seven accused have already been convicted by the Court below vide judgment dated January 23, 2008. Though in the challan initially presented,it was mentioned that on account of petitioners absconding, supplementary challan shall be presented against them after their arrest. However, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the petitioners which was accepted and a direction was given for presentation of challan against them. There may be procedural irregularity to that effect as the police itself could present supplementary challan against the petitioners after their arrest. The petitioners, in fact, had not been arrested. Petitioners No.1 and 2 had approached this Court with a direction for anticipatory bail which was rejected by this Court on May 19, 2008. In my opinion, with insignificant irregularity committed in the conduct of proceedings, the petitioners are not going to be effected in any manner what-so-ever as during the trial they will have ample opportunity to defend their case. They are accused in the FIR under Sections 148/149/323/302 IPC . Merely because subsequent order came to be passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. also will not be of any help to the petitioners. Accordingly I do not find merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE May 21, 2008 sunita