IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-8956 of 2009 Date of decision: 31st March, 2009 Surat Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 4th March, 2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby he had set aside the order dated 4th March, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Rewari. Petitioners Surat Singh and Mohan Lal were specifically named in the FIR by the complainant. FIR has been annexed as Annexure P-1. In the FIR, it has been stated that Surat Singh petitioner gave one stick blow, which hit on the left hand of the complainant Manohar Lal. Petitioner Mohan Lal also gave stick blow on the back of complainant. The matter was investigated. Police presented the challan and placed both Surat Singh and Mohan Lal in column No.2. Complainant appeared in Court and in his testimony, reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR. On an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., petitioners were refused to be summoned by the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Rewari. The order of the Judicial Criminal Misc. No. M-8956 of 2009 Magistrate (1st Class) was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, who, after taking into consideration the entire case of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that specific injuries have been attributed to the petitioners and they have been named in the earliest version, therefore, they were to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari has placed reliance upon ‘Y.Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy and others’ Supreme Court of India – 2007(6) SRJ 313 and held that once the specific allegation is made, accused are to be put to trial. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon ‘Paramvir @ Happy v. State of Haryana’ 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 408. A perusal of the judgment will reveal that it was held that Court should first satisfy, whether there are chances of conviction or not. Secondly, it was held that it is duty of the police authorities to give complete details and reasons in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., as to why particular persons are not being challaned and on the basis of which evidence, they are being absolved due to this reasoning, a question of fact was taken into consideration that the complainant has not stated something new in the Court and has only repeated the same allegation. That judgment is on the facts of that case and is not attracted in the present case. Counsel for the petitioners has made two-fold grievance. It has been firstly submitted that nothing new was stated by the complainant except the allegation levelled in the FIR. What new the complainant should have stated except the truth. In the FIR, he stated that both the petitioners had given injuries, therefore, this is only that he could state. It has been secondly, submitted that complainant had appeared in pursuance of bailable warrants after seven years, therefore 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-8956 of 2009 delay should have been taken into consideration to absolve the petitioners of the offences. What are the circumstances for the delay, are not before this Court. Even otherwise, delay can be taken as a mitigating circumstance by the trial Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 31, 2009 rps 3