Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2009 Ashok Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below on 19.8.2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran as additional accused was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that on account of a dispute between the families of real brothers, FIR was registered on 20.5.2008, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 506 IPC at Police Station, Khol. It was stated in the FIR that complainant-Ashok Kumar was caught hold of by his brother Partap Singh and was beaten by his sons – Inderveer @ Naveen and Sunil Kumar with Dandas in their hands, with which the complainant was hit on the head and legs. When he fell down, the ladies including respondent No. 2- Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran, who were also stated to be present, had also given blows to him. In the statement, which was got recorded in the court, the petitioner improved his statement and alleged that when he fell down, Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran gave a Danda blow on his left ear which resulted in a grievous injury. It was at this stage that application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran was filed. The same having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material before the court was sufficient to summon Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran as additional accused as there were specific allegations against her in the statement of the petitioner, which was recorded in the court. The same was even corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned court below had totally gone wrong in dismissing the application holding that the material on record was not sufficient to form an Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 [2] opinion that there was likelihood of conviction of the person sought to be summoned. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The admitted case in the FIR is that the petitioner- complainant was alone in the fields when he was attacked by the accused party. There were three male members, namely, Partap Singh, brother of the complainant, and his two sons, namely, Inderveer @ Naveen and Sunil Kumar. Initially, in the FIR, it is mentioned that while Partap Singh had caught hold of the complainant- petitioner, his two sons had hit him with Dandas on head and legs. Only general allegation was made against the ladies named in the FIR that they had given blows to the complainant-petitioner. Specific attack on the ear by any of the accused, what to talk of ladies, was not even alleged. In fact, the complainant-petitioner had been hit on the left side of his head by one of the other accused. Still further, in his cross-examination, the complainant-petitioner had admitted that respondent No. 2- Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran was married about 8 to 10 years back. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.10.2009 mk