Crl. Misc. No. M-3247 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3247 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 2, 2011 Jagdeep Singh alias Deep Singh ...................................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the order dated 3.9.2010 and judgment dated 10.1.2011 vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 89 dated 24.5.2005 under Sections 148, 325, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Rajound, came to be registered on the statement of Kulbir Singh (Ex.PA). He alleged that petitioner along with five co-accused had assaulted him on 22.5.2005 at about 8:30 p.m. with Barcha, lathis and jaili after the petitioner exhorted them to attack him. Crl. Misc. No. M-3247 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] Injuries with blunt weapons have been sustained by the injured. Fractures were also detected in the x-ray examination under the above injuries. After conclusion of the investigation, five accused were challaned. Petitioner Jagdeep Singh was found to be innocent before the trial Court. After recording the statement of the injured Kulbir Singh, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner. The trial Court allowed this application on the ground that Jagdeep Singh @ Deep Singh had exhorted the other accused to attack the complainant Kulbir Singh. He then attacked him first with a blow with Barsha on his left arm. This statement was made by the complainant before the police as Ex.PA. The trial Court has observed that a specific role has been attributed to Jagdeep Singh in the original complaint. The defence failed to make any cross-examination over the role of accused Jagdeep Singh. The evidence of the accused Kulbir Singh (Ex. PA) corroborates with the injury on the person of the complainant. This is a sufficient ground to summon the accused. On revision, the order of the trial Court has been affirmed by further observing that the Investigating Agency has not given any specific reason for not challaning Jagdeep Singh @ Deep Singh. The statement made by Kulbir Singh, the injuries suffered by him and the contents of the complaint are sufficient to summon the petitioner to face trial as an additional accused. Mr. Surender Dhull, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that a person should be summoned to face trial only when the Court finds evidence on record which would reasonably lead to conviction of a person sought to be summoned. In the present case, apart from the corroboration made by the complainant, no new evidence has come Crl. Misc. No. M-3247 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] on record. He placed reliance on the judgments in Sarabjit Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Another 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 388, Hukam Chand and another v. State of Haryana and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 141, Palanisamy Gounder and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 235 and Michael Machado & Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, apart from the statement made by the complainant Kulbir Singh (Ex.PA), the nature of injuries suffered by him corroborated with evidence and the statement made in the complaint. Since the Investigating Agency had not given any specific reason for not challaning the petitioner, the order dated 3.9.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, and the judgment dated 10.1.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, do not suffer from any infirmity in summoning the petitioner. The nature of injuries suffered is part of the record and it has corroborated with the contents of the complaint and evidence of statement made by Kulbir Singh (Ex.PA). In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 2.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE