IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev.2388 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 MOOL CHAND ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), whereby Sheo Ram son of Malha Ram and Mool Chand son of Rohtash (petitioner) have been summoned to face trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is brought out that FIR No.35 dated 20.4.2006 was registered under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Nangal Chaudhary. Three persons; namely, Saroj wife of Rohtash, Sheo Ram son of Malha Ram and Mool Chand son of Rohtash (petitioner), were named as accused. During investigation, no incriminating material could be collected against Sheo Ram and Mool Chand and only Saroj wife of Rohtash was forwarded for trial. Sheo Ram and Mool Chand were shown in column Criminal Rev.2388 of 2007 (O&M) 2 No.2. It seems that Sheo Ram, in challenge to order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), had approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.2459 of 2006. After considering the material, the same was allowed vide order dated 18.2.2008. It has clearly been observed by this Court that there was no evidence against Sheo Ram and, therefore, he could not have been summoned under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the case of the petitioner is much better in so much as the petitioner was born on 10.10.1994. On the date of incident, therefore, the petitioner was just about 11 years and 6 months old. Considering the age of the petitioner, it is rather impossible to assume that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence. It has also been contended that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Sheo Ram, whose revision petition has already allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that the petitioner was about 11 years old at the time of the incident. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner with that of Sheo Ram so far as the role is concerned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. September 18, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE