IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2009 Date of decision : July 09, 2009 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 1 Mr. KS Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent no. 5 Mr. PS Goraya, Advocate, for respondent no. 6 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Balbir Singh complainant has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 4.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur thereby dismissing application under section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for summoning respondent Nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Raghbir Singh and Daljit Singh as additional accused to face trial along with respondent nos. 2 to 4 who are already facing trial in FIR No. 93 dated 29.6.2006, under sections 302 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur. According to the prosecution version, respondent no. 2 installed a fodder cutting machine in empty land lying near Haveli of complainant party with an intention to take possession thereof about three Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2009 -2- weeks before the occurrence. Despite protest by the complainant, respondent no. 2 did not remove the machine. There was minor scuffle between the parties. On 28.8.2006 at about 8.15 PM, complainant Balbir Singh, his brother Janak Singh and one Inder Singh were sitting in their Haveli. Janak Singh went out. Complainant followed him. Janak Singh was waylaid by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who were armed with dang, wooden sota and iron rod and caused injuries to Janak Singh resulting in his death. It was further alleged in the FIR lodged by Balbir Singh complainant- petitoner that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 murdered Janak Singh on the instigation of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The police after investigation presented challan for trial of respondent No. 2 to 4 only and found respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to be innocent. After charge was framed against respondent no. 2 to 4, the complainant petitioner appeared as PW1 and broadly re-iterated the version stated in the FIR. Thereafter prosecution moved application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as additional accused. The said application stands dismissed by the trial court by passing impugned order dated 4.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Admittedly respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were not present at the time of occurrence nor participated in any manner in the occurrence. Only allegation against them is that they had been instigating respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to kill the deceased. However, it has not been stated either in the FIR or in the witness box by the complainant that he had seen respondent nos. 5 Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2009 -2- and 6 instigating respondent nos. 2 to 4 to commit the murder and if so when and where. On the other hand, Janak Singh since deceased was residing in Jammu whereas the occurrence took place in village Kaleechpur District Gurdaspur. The police after investigation found respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to be innocent. There is practically no evidence to depict that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had been instigating respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to commit the murder in question. In view of the aforesaid, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 09, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'