Crl. Revision No.2052 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.2052 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Darshana Devi and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15th July, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, whereby revision of respondent Mohit Kumar has been allowed and order dated 14th November, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been set-aside. According to the counsel, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner by respondent No.1, who is aunt of respondent No.2. Resultantly, he has been summoned to face trial. However, complainant did not complain against respondent No.2, due to which instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had to be moved by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Revision No.2052 of 2009 2 The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by Baldev Singh petitioner alleging that Mohit Kumar was equally liable for the offence and thus should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as a co-accused. This application was allowed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. The said order was, however, reversed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda observing that the order summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., passed by the Magistrate was palpably wrong since the complainant has no grievance against the said accused. The revisional court also observed that the complainant may even have compounded the offence with the other accused thus, there was no ground to summon him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity with the order passed by the revisional court. It is clear that the present case is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant has not levelled any allegations against respondent No.2 nor has she sought his summoning. Before the trial court, the complainant filed a reply and submitted that petitioner Baldev Singh was responsible for conduct of business of the company M/s Arjun Bottling Plant Pvt. Ltd. and cheque in question was issued by him. She opposed the summoning of Mohit Gupta as additional accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner, who has been summoned as accused, has filed the instant Crl. Revision No.2052 of 2009 3 application for summoning of one Mohit Gupta stating that he is his co-accused. The complainant has opposed this prayer. It appears that complainant is not interested in arraying respondent No.2 as accused in the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Act. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 'rajpal'