Criminal Revision No. 2699 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2699 of 2011 Date of decision : 3.11.2011. Bant Singh ................ Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Sh. G.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition against the order dated 13.8.2011 passed by Shri K.C.Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide which the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – the Cr.P.C.) for summoning Chintu Puri as additional accused was dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 2699 of 2011 2 2. The present case was registered on the statement made by Bant Singh son of Kartar Singh, who has stated that he is a labourer and is residing with Baljit Kaur his daughter. On the date of occurrence, he along with his daughter was present in the house. At about 6'O clock Inderjit Singh @ Dimple son of Daljit Singh armed with kirpan, Jiwan Singh son of Darshan Singh armed with kirpan entered their house and opened the door by giving kick. Inderjit Singh @ Dimple gave kirpan blow near his left eye and another kirpan blow has been given near his right eye. Jiwan Singh raised lalkara that they would teach him a lesson for quarreling with Madan Puri. Thereafter, Inderjit Singh @ Dimple gave kick blow on his right arm. Another kirpan blow was given by Jiwan Singh on his right leg and then another blow on the right leg. Jiwan Singh also gave kirpan blow on his right leg and thereafter he fell down and Inderjit Singh gave kirpan blow on his right hand and little finger. Third blow was given by him on the little finger of his right hand and Jiwan Singh gave kirpan blow on his right leg. Thereafter, his daughter Baljit Kaur raised alarm Marditta-Marditta and it attracted Suba Singh and thereafter both the persons ran away from the spot along with kirpans. It is further stated by the complainant that at some distance from the house elder son of Madan Puri was there with a motor cycle and both of them sat on his motor cycle and fled away. 3. The challan was presented against Inderjit Singh and Jiwan Singh and during the pendency of the case, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Chintu Puri as an accused. Criminal Revision No. 2699 of 2011 3 4. Bant Singh complainant appeared as his own witness and after narrating the part attributed to Inderjit Singh and Jiwan Singh, he has stated in the Court that Chintu Puri son of Madan Puri was standing in front of the house. The motive for causing injuries was for godown of Chintu Puri, which was adjoining his house and he was refraining from raising construction. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the record and testimony of PW-1 Bant Singh reached at the conclusion that no case for summoning Chintu Puri as an accused is made oat. The reasoning given by the rial court is that according to the case of the prosecution Chintu Puri was not armed with weapon nor he inflicted any injury. It is held that if the evidence is taken as it is would not lead to the conviction of Chintu Puri and as such no case for his summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is made out. The reasoning given by the trial Court appeal to the reason. It is not disputed that name of Chintu Puri is not mentioned in the FIR nor he has been attributed any injury. It is also not alleged that he raised any lalkara and even entered the house of the accused. In the FIR, it is mentioned that elder son of Madan Puri was standing outside. Even the name of Chintu Puri is not mentioned. The trial Court has relied upon authority Kailash vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 200, in which it has been held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly use. 12. In these circumstances, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Criminal Revision No. 2699 of 2011 4 13. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 03, 2011 sv