Crl.Revision No.305 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.305 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.2.2008 Rajender Singh ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana &Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for summoning Shanti, Kuldeep, Kalawati, Ritu and Kamlesh FIR No.437 dated 7.10.2005 was registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad under sections 302/324/325/326/34 IPC on the statement of Rajender. After thorough investigation while Ram Chander, Dalbir and Crl.Revision No.305 of 2008 2 Jag Ram were charged with the offence, However, since no evidence or material against Shanti, Kuldeep, Kalawati ,Ritu and Kamlesh was found they were kept in column No.2. Application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution after the statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he reiterated the stand taken in the FIR and named the above persons as accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad on consideration of available material by relying upon the judgments of this court in the cases of Isham Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 279 and Ganesha Vs. State of Haryana and another 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 633 came to the conclusion that there was no force in the application moved by the petitioner as an attempt was being made by the complainant to rope in all family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Additional Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant has specifically named the above persons as accused in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded in the court on oath. Learned counsel also submits that Jag Ram one of the accused had filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 307/324/307/34 IPC. Said complaint was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fatehabad by observing that Jag Ram has not approached the court with clean hands. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Crl.Revision No.305 of 2008 3 therefore, is that in view of the dismissal of the complaint statement of Jag Ram accused cannot be believed. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this contention. After the registration of FIR the police has thoroughly investigated the case and put up challan against three accused whereas it was noticed during investigation that there was no evidence except the assertions of the complainant. Merely by repeating the said assertions it could not be said that material was there to summon the persons named in the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. as an accused. The learned trial court is bound to appreciate the evidence brought on record before summoning persons under section 319 Cr.P.C. In a given case the mere statement of the complainant may inspire confidence entitling the court to summon a person under section 319 Cr.P.C. But that cannot be set up as a rule. In the present case, learned trial court on appreciation of material brought on record as well as the investigation conducted by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that attempt was made by the complainant to rope in all the family members in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in case the police report is to be accepted finally then the very purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be lost. This contention is totally misconceived as the learned trial court has not rejected the appliation on the basis of police report or prosecution version, rather the application moved by the prosecution has been ordered to be dismissed. Crl.Revision No.305 of 2008 4 Keeping in view the fact that except for the statement of the complainant where an attempt was made to rope in all family members there was no other evidence, no ground is out made to interfere. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 15.2.2008 Judge rp