IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 2228 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.12.2009 Kashmir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr PS Grewal, AAG Punjab. S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner – Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh against the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 CrPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Amanpreet Singh who has stated that they were two brothers and Harpreet Singh was elder to him. On the date of the incident i.e. 26.5.2008 at around 10.30 a.m., polling of Panchayat elections in the Primary School of the village was being held. At that time, complainant – Amanpreet Singh alongwith Gurpreet Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of village Khatrai Khurd and Dhanwant Singh son of Harbans Singh came to poll their votes in the Primary School. Manohar Singh, an uncle (father’s younger brother) of the complainant was the polling agent appointed by the Akali Party and Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) was polling agent appointed by the Congress Party. There was a quarrel regarding polling of 1 Criminal Revision 2228 of 2009 votes. During the quarrel, Kashmir Singh son of Banta Singh and Parshottam Singh son of Jagir Singh were also present there. Kashmir Singh son of Banta Singh raised a ‘lalkara’ that Manohar Singh should be caught hold of. Then in the presence of the complainant, Parshottam Singh with his knife attacked Manohar Singh with an intention to kill him. The knife blow hit Manohar Singh in his abdomen. In order to save Manohar Singh, the complainant stepped forward. Then Kashmir Singh son of Banta Singh caught hold of the complainant and threw him down. Then Parshottam Singh attacked him twice with the knife in his hand, which hit the complainant on the right and left legs below his knees. Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) kicked the complainant and Manohar Singh. There were 4-5 unidentified persons along with the petitioner, whom he (complainant) did not know. It is alleged that Kashmir Singh son of Banta Singh, Parshottam Singh son of Jagir Singh, Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) along with 4-5 unidentified persons had caused injuries to the complainant and Manohar Singh. During investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and was not sent up for trial. During trial, statement of Amanpreet Singh (complainant) was recorded, who in his statement, has stated that Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) also kicked the complainant and his uncle – Manohar Singh and also kept on raising ‘lalkaras’. The complainant – Amanpreet Singh was partly cross-examined and his further cross- examination was deferred, on the request made by Additional PP on the ground that he wanted to move an application under Section 319 CrPC. In pursuance of the impugned order, the petitioner has been summoned holding that it appeared from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) who had not been challaned 2 Criminal Revision 2228 of 2009 in the case, had also committed the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324/34 IPC and could be tried with the present accused and the Court deemed it proper to proceed against him for the offences. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that insofar as summoning the additional accused is concerned, a person not sent up for trial can be summoned by the Court if some material is found against him having regard to the FIR. The evidence on record is to indicate a reasonable prospect that the person who is to be summoned, would be convicted. Mere suspicion of involvement of a person is not sufficient to summon him as an additional accused in terms of Section 319 CrPC. The Court passing an order summoning the additional accused is to satisfy itself that the person who has not been arraigned as an accused in the case had indeed committed the offence and for the said offence, the person to be summoned could as well be tried along with the accused already summoned. In the FIR that has been registered on the statement of complainant – Amanpreet Singh, it has been alleged that the petitioner kept on kicking him and his uncle – Manohar Singh. Besides, the petitioner along with 4-5 unidentified persons had caused injuries to the complainant and his uncle and committed high handedness. In the statement recorded in Court during his examination-in-chief, it is stated by Amanpreet Singh – complainant that the petitioner also kicked him and his uncle – Manohar Singh. The Police had investigated the case. Learned counsel for the State has produced the investigation file of the Police. The SP (D), Amritsar (Rural) had addressed a letter dated 12.8.2008 to the SSP Amritsar (Rural) in which it is mentioned that at the time of polling, the petitioner 3 Criminal Revision 2228 of 2009 was present in the polling booth but he was not involved in the occurrence and he did not cause any injury to any person. It was verified that Parshottam Singh son of Jagir Singh and Kashmir Singh son of Banta Singh were accused in the case and Kashmir Singh son of Saroop Singh (petitioner) was innocent. The said report was accepted by the SSP Amritsar (Rural) and the SHO was asked to comply. Therefore, on the investigation conducted by the Police, it was established that the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence and even though he was present at the polling both, he was not actually involved in the incident that occurred. In the statement of the complainant – Amanpreet Singh recorded in Court, it is merely alleged that the petitioner kicked him. The kicks attributed to the petitioner are not shown to be there by any medical evidence and none has been adverted to in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. From the statement of the petitioner and material on record, it cannot be said that there is reasonable prospect of the petitioner being convicted or that the case would result in his conviction. It is only a case of mere suspicion of the involvement of the petitioner, which in the circumstances, is not likely to result in his conviction and as such not sufficient to warrant his summoning. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.4.2009 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside. 14.12.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4 Criminal Revision 2228 of 2009 5