IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 5534 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 23, 2009 Tarlok Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for setting aside the order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Amritsar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 CrPC for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused has been dismissed. Case FIR No.77 dated 11.3.2007 stands registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar for the offences under Sections 302, 148/149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The nephew of the petitioner namely Naranjan Singh son of Raghbir Singh was murdered in the said case by the accused. The FIR (Annexure P1) was registered on the statement of Tarlok Singh (petitioner). Thereafter, a cross- version (Annexure P2) was registered on 22.3.2007. During investigation in the case, three accused whom the petitioner alleges had committed the offences namely Bachan Singh (respondent No.2), Bhajan Singh and Ajit Pal Singh were not charge-sheeted (challaned) by the Police. In terms of the order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P5), the Crl. Misc. No. M- 5534 of 2009 (O&M) [2] learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar had summoned Bhajan Singh and Ajit Pal Singh as additional accused. The grievance of the petitioner is that Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) is also liable to be summoned. It is submitted that a specific role of raising a lalkara and being part of an unlawful assembly which had murdered his nephew Naranjan Singh has been alleged. Therefore, Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) is also liable to be summoned. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the order dated 14.5.2008 (Annexure P5), it may be noticed that as per the statement of Tarlok Singh (petitioner) (PW-1), Bhajan Singh had given a ‘datar’ blow to him, whereas only a lalkara is attributed to Bachan Singh (respondent No.2). Ajit Pal Singh along with Ranjit Singh took Naranjan Singh to his house and after reaching there, Ranjit Singh gave a ‘Sua’ blow on the neck of Naranjan Singh. Therefore, it was observed that a specific role is attributed to Ajit Pal Singh for carrying Naranjan Singh to his house. The site plan of the incident was referred to and it had been alleged that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the accused. Accordingly, sufficient ground was found to summon Ajit Pal Singh for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and also Bhajan Singh who had caused injury to the petitioner Tarlok Singh with his datar. However, Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) it was observed that only a lalkara had been attributed to him and he was found innocent by the Police. The inquiry report (Annexure P6) shows that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had found Bachan Singh (respondent No.2), Bhajan Singh and Ajit Pal Singh to be innocent and not involved. Keeping in view the fact that only a lalkara is attributed to respondent No.2 ( Bachan Singh), the chances of inflating the prosecution version cannot entirely be ruled out. Bhajan Singh is the brother of Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) who has been summoned. Therefore, endeavour to name the persons of the family of the accused cannot entirely be ruled out. Crl. Misc. No. M- 5534 of 2009 (O&M) [3] In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order (Annexure P5) and the grievance of the petitioner that Bachan Singh (respondent No.2) has not been summoned as additional accused is not tenable. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 23, 2009 amit