Criminal Misc. No. M-9239 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-9239 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Ram Kishan ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Dy. Adv. General, Haryana for respondent – State assisted by Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Adv. for respondents No.2 and 3. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the order dated December 17 th, 2008 (Annexure P7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, by which, he set aside the order dated November 19 th, 2007 (Annexure P5) of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, whereby, application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon Ravi Parkash and Ved Parkash, respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, and two others in case First Information Report (for short `FIR') No.143 dated July 26 th, 2002 under Sections 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Rewari, was allowed. 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Ram Kishan – petitioner/complainant. The matter was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rewari and he found Sushil Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector to be an accused. 3. During trial, complainant made statement that at the time when he was given beatings by Sushil Kumar in the Police Station, Dhani Ram, Rati Ram, Ravi Parkash and Ved Parkash were also present. Except this statement, there is not even a word against the respondents to show that the named persons participated in the commission of crime. It also finds mention in the enquiry conducted Criminal Misc. No. M-9239 of 2009(O&M) [2] by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 4. Today, this Court has been informed by the learned State counsel assisted by Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, representing respondents No.2 and 3 that Sushil Kumar has already been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in this case. 5. It is settled proposition of law that while deciding application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, it must appear to the court from the evidence in any inquiry or trial that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already before the court. A small suspicion or some doubt would not suffice. The court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence collected that firstly the other person has committed an offence and that for such offence the other person could be tried along with the accused and for that it has to be seen as to whether there is prima-facie evidence against the persons to be summoned which could possibly lead to their conviction. Here, there is nothing on record, except the bald statement of the complainant during trial that the respondents were present in the Police Station when he was given beatings by Sushil Kumar, which in opinion of this Court was not evidence of substantial nature to summon the respondents to face trial along with Sushil Kumar. 6. Hence, there being no scope for interference in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE