Crl.Rev.No.2792 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2792 of 2009. Decided on: February 25, 2010. Vijay Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Gouripuria, DAG, Haryana. Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Aggrieved by the dismissal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 01.10.2009, the complainant has preferred this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statement of Vijay Singh has been recorded and specific role has been attributed to Balbir, Sandeep and Krishan warranting their summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.2792 of 2009 validity of order dated 19.08.2009, passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that there are fair chances of conviction of the said persons having specifically been named in the FIR as well as in the statement of Vijay Singh complainant. Whether Balbir, Sandeep and Krishan could be summoned as additional accused along with Manoj Kumar and Subhash requires to be determined in the light of judgment in Micheal Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of investigation & anr. 2000(2), RCR (Crl.) Page-75, in context to the statement of Vijay Singh made in the Court. The role attributed to Balbir Singh and Sandeep is that they exhorted other accused to kill Radhey Shyam complainant when Subhash and Krishan had actually arrived at the spot and Krishan caught hold of the leg of Vijay Singh. The said persons i.e., Balbir, Sandeep and Krishan were not challaned by the police, after having been found innocent. No part has been attributed to Balbir and Sandeep. The specific words used for exhorting the other accused are also not clarified. Vague allegations have been levelled against Krishan to have caught hold of the leg of the complainant. It appears that the over jealous complainant seeks to rope in the maximum number of accused on the basis of the statement of possession of the dual version regarding involvement of said three persons. Prima facie does not appear to be a case warranting conviction against the said three . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.2792 of 2009 persons till this stage. The statement of Major Singh regarding the particular leg which was caught hold is also uncertain. In view of the above circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below. Dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail the legal remedy available to the petitioner after the evidence of Radhey Shyam. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 25, 2010. rka . . . 3