CRR No.909 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.909 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.04.2011 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ad another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the petitioner to summon Deepak Taneja as co-accused/additional accused was dismissed. Record reveals that initially petitioner has named Vijay Taneja and one another in the FIR. Now, during the trial, petitioner has developed his case by stating that another person with main accused Vijay Taneja was his real brother Deepak Taneja. Learned trial Court having observed that statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence, rejected the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Now this is no more res integra that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and very sparingly only CRR No.909 of 2011 (O&M) -2- when Court finds that if entire material/evidence available on the file stands unrebutted would lead to the conviction of the person sought to be summoned as additional accused. It is highly improbable to believe that petitioner has named Vijay Taneja in the FIR and has not named his real brother Deepak Taneja. Tendency to rope in all the family members cannot be ruled out. Refusal to invoke discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not require any interference. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge April 25, 2011 R.S.