Crl.Rev.No.1981 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.1981 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.3.2009 Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the complainant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner challenges an order dated 8.7.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, summoning the petitioner as additional accused. Counsel for the petitioner submits that merits of the case apart, the impugned order does not assign any reason for summoning the petitioner. The learned Court below has failed to refer to the facts, the evidence on record and failed to consider the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). Counsel for the State of Punjab, however, submits that as the prosecutrix has named the petitioner while deposing before the Court, the learned trial Court rightly ordered his summoning. Crl.Rev.No.1981 of 2008 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order is devoid of reference to any facts, does not set out the arguments, is bereft of any reasons supported by a consideration of the evidence and in essence does not meet the parameters of a judicial order much less an order required to be passed under Section 319 of the Code. The impugned order reads as follows :- “Heard. There are specific allegations leveled by the Prosecutorix against Ajay Kumar alias Ajju, Jaspreet Singh alias Jassa and Jai Pal alias Bunti whose name have been kept on column No.2 by the present in the challan, that they have committed rape with her. Thus, prima facie offence under Section 376 IPC is made out from the statement of Prosecutorix Satinder Kaur recorded on oath in the court. Let Ajay Kumar, Jaspreet Singh and Jai Pal be summoned to face trial under Section 376 IPC for 29.7.2008.” The above order discloses an abject failure on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, to comprehend its jurisdiction and its duty as a court considering an application filed under Section 319 of the Code, to pass a reasoned order. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the order dated 8.7.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, to decide the matter afresh, after considering the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, the precedents thereunder and by Crl.Rev.No.1981 of 2008 3 recording reasons, within one month from a date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17.3.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE