Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.01.2010 Charanjit @ Vicky son of Mehar Singh Jat, r/o village Govindpuri, P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, is directed, against the order, dated 23.10.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which, it summoned Taranjit Singh @ Bhura, Charanajit @ Vicky, and Hardev Singh, as additional accused, to face trial. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 30.11.06, at about 12/12.30 PM, Anil Punia, alongwith his friend Satinder, stopped at the shop of Suresh Betel Seller, to have a cigarette. In the meanwhile, an Alto car, bearing registration No. HR-02-P-3435, came there and stopped. Five Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 2 persons alighted from it. A motorcycle, without number plate, also stopped there. Both the riders of the motorcycle, were armed with sword and rod. Two occupants of the car were holding gandasis; three of them were holding swords. They were Hardev Singh, Bhura, Kamal, Vicky, Sukrampal, Kamma, and Devender @ Khela. All of them attacked the complainant and caused injuries, on his person. Ultimately, on the statement of Anil Punia, FIR No. 631 dated 04.12.06, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered. 3. The prosecution examined Anil Punia, complainant, PW1, and, thereafter, an application, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was moved, for summoning Taranjit Singh @ Bhura, Charanajit @ Vicky, on the ground, that they had participated, in the commission of crime. 4. The trial Court, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, was satisfied, that there were reasonable grounds, for summoning Taranjit Singh @ Bhura, Charanajit @ Vicky, and Hardev Singh, as additional accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petitioner, has been filed, by Charanjit @ Vicky, accused-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that, after conducting the inquiry, the investigating agency, found, that the petitioner, was innocent, and, as such, his name, was put in column No. Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 3 2 of the report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner, was not earlier known to the complainant, at the time of occurrence, and, as such, he could not identify him, as the alleged perpetrator of crime. He has further submitted that, under these circumstances, there was virtually no evidence, on record, to summon the petitioner, as an additional accused, but the trial Court, acted illegally. He has further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The perusal of the order impugned, passed by the trial Court, clearly goes to show, that it took into consideration, the entire deposition of Anil Punia, complainant, and, then came to the conclusion, that injury, was caused, on his person, with iron rod (saria), and, as such, the accused, participated in the commission of crime. It was not that, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, that the petitioner, was summoned, as an additional accused, by the trial Court. The trial Court, was also aware of the legal position, that the criterion for summoning the accused, was not just a prima-facie case, but something higher than that. After satisfying itself, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that reasonable grounds existed, on the basis of the evidence of Anil Punia, for summoning the petitioner, as an additional accused. The mere fact, that the name of the petitioner, was not known to the complainant, at the time of occurrence, did not mean, that he Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 4 could not identify him. No doubt, it was stated by Anil Punia, that he had become unconscious. He became unconscious, after he received injuries, at the hands of the accused-petitioner, and his co-accused. He identified the accused-petitioner, and his co-acused, at the time of occurrence. He might have not been knowing the names of the accused- petitioner, at the relevant time, and, that was why, the same, was told, to him, by one Satinder. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-67 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 14.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE