Crl. Revision No.1274 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1274 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011 Balwinder Kaur ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab. ------- K.C. PURI. J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.03.2011 passed by Sh. Kishore Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused invoking the provision of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. In FIR No.33 dated 27.05.2008 registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25, 27, 30, 54, 59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Dorangala, District Gurdaspur, in which the presence of the petitioner is mentioned and it is alleged that she raised lalkara, however, during the course of investigation, she was declared innocent. The prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused and that application has been accepted vide impugned order dated Crl. Revision No.1274 of 2011 - 2 - 21.03.2011. The reasons given by the trial Court in summoning the petitioner are mentioned in para No.4 of the impugned order is reproduced as under: “ The Additional P.P. for the State has contended that there are specific allegations appearing against the accused Balwinder Kaur. Hence she should be summoned to face the trial and has referred the Statement of Paramjit Singh, complainant who has specifically stated that “Balwinder Kaur raised Lalkara and asked the other accused to caught hold us and teach the lesson for contesting the election against them and also to not casting vote in their favour. So, Balwinder Kaur has led the aggression and raised the Lalkara to kill the complainant party and upon her exhortation her husband Paramjit Singh fired two shots and seriously injured Simarjit Kaur and Sartaj Singh and other also gave injuries to the other injured P.Ws. The name of present accused also figured in the FIR as well as in the statement of Paramjit Singh complainant and she has been specifically attributed overt act of giving Lalkara. Though the counsel for the accused facing the trial has contended that as only Lalkara is attributed, hence, it is general tendency to rope in as many as number of persons of the assailant party in criminal cases but there is nothing on record to prove the fact that if she be arrayed as an accused which led to her conviction and the evidence led on the file is sufficient to led her conviction.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl. Revision No.1274 of 2011 - 3 - accused can be summoned as an additional accused only if the three conditions are satisfied, which are enumerated in authority of Gurmeet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 195. It is submitted that the said authority is based upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court titled as Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 504. Learned State counsel is fair to concede that such satisfaction is not recorded in the trial Court. So in these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order after keeping in view the above said two authorities. Petition stands disposed of , accordingly. (K.C. PURI) December 14, 2011 JUDGE sarita