Criminal Revision No.2584 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2584 of 2011 Decided on 12.12.2011. Sukhdev Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. L.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. The present revision petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 13.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court ), Sirsa vide which the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short– Cr.P.C.) has been dismissed holding that the complainant has failed to make out a strong case warranting conviction of the alleged accused. 2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that petitioner lodged one case FIR No.103 dated 4.5.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 307, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short – the IPC ) in Police Station city Dabwali wherein besides other accused, specific allegations Criminal Revision No.2584 of 2011 2 were levelled against respondent No.2 that Baljeet Singh gave a lathi blow on his back side in between the shoulder. However, during investigation, the police found the respondent No.2 innocent and kept him in column No.2 in its report presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, during the course of his statement before the trial Court named Baljeet Singh and therefore, moved an application for summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application as aforesaid. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. 6. The power conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised by the Courts keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in various authorities mentioned in para No.6 of the impugned order of the trial court. According to the allegations, Baljeet Singh caused injury on the back side of complainant, however, as per medical report there was no corresponding injury on the back side of the complainant. Baljeet Singh has been declared as innocent during the course of investigation. The accused could be ordered to be summoned to stand trial along with the other accused if the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence on the file is sufficient for his ultimate conviction. The trial Court reached to the conclusion that evidence on the file is not sufficient to convict Baljeet Singh person sought to be summoned as an additional accused. No other Criminal Revision No.2584 of 2011 3 over act has been attributed to Baljeet Singh. So, in these circumstances, I do not see any infirmity in the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the trial Court vide which the prayer of the prosecution/complainant to summon Baljeet Singh as additional accused has been declined. 7. Consequently, the present revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. December 12, 2011 (K.C. PURI) sv JUDGE