Crl. Revision No.1849 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1849 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 18.08.2011 Rajesh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a revision petition preferred by the complainant-petitioner against order dated 25.04,2011, Annexure P-1, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby his application for summoning additional accused in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when complainant-Rajesh stepped into the witness-box, he attributed clear-cut role to the additional accused namely Vijay Bhushan, Surya Kant and Sanjay and, thus, they were required to be summoned by the court to face the trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the occurrence, which took place on 07.11.2009, a statement was made by the complainant before the police that he was attacked by two brothers namely Naveen and Parveen. While Naveen fired at him, Parveen chased him. During the course of trial, the complainant-Rajesh stepped into witness-box as PW-7. In his testimony, he stated that Vijay Crl. Revision No.1849 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: Bhushan, Surya Kant and Sanjay had threatened to kill him. He also made a statement that said persons were accompanying Parveen at the time of occurrence. Thus, they were required to be summoned in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C. The prayer, however, was not accepted by the trial court. It was observed that according to the record, there was previous enmity between the parties and, thus, possibility of the complainant naming additional accused because of enmity could not be ruled out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity, legal or otherwise, with the impugned order. The complainant has merely levelled allegation that additional accused, sought to be summoned, had threatened to kill him. According to the complainant, Vijay Bhushan, Surya Kant and Sanjay were accompanying the accused Parveen and Naveen at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, the complainant did not name the said persons in his initial version given to the police. Under these circumstances, when names of additional accused sought to be summoned, did not figure in the initial version and no other material has been brought to the notice of this court pointing towards their involvement in the crime, there is no ground to summon them to face trial under section 319 Cr.P.C. No interference in the impugned order is, thus, called for. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. In view of the fact that the case has been heard on merits, delay in filing the revision petition is deemed to have been condoned. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 18, 2011 sukhpreet