IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2388 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 01, 2008 Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition challenges order dated 30.10.2008 whereby the petitioner alongwith three others has been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been brought out by learned counsel for the petitioner that challan in the case was presented on 20.11.2006 wherein 8 persons were forwarded for trial. The petitioner alongwith other four persons was shown as Proclaimed Offender and three persons were shown as innocent in the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. filed on 10.1.2007 wherein two of the proclaimed offenders, after arrest were challaned. It seems that the petitioner filed an application before the Punjab Human Rights Commission Crl. Rev. No.2388 of 2008 [2] whereafter further investigation was conducted. Report dated 14.1.2008 was filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner has been shown as innocent. After statement of PW-1 Manjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was recorded, the petitioner has been asked to stand trial. The short contention of learned counsel is that the Court was required to consider the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. filed by the investigating agency which shows that the petitioner was innocent. This having not been done, prejudice has been caused. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also gone through the statement of Manjit Singh that has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Perusal of the FIR that has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, indicates the role ascribed to the petitioner in the following terms:- “……in the mean time Gurmeet Singh son of Meeta raised lalkara that today Jassi etc. should not be left alive and my brother and Jasvir Singh came down from Gypsy and ran for safety towards the vehicle in front of them, then the above persons followed and gheraod them. I and Pavittar Singh also followed them. In our view Gurmit Singh @ Meeta gave direct blow on the head of my brother which hit my brother on the left side head of my brother from the front side.” When Manjit Singh appeared as a prosecution witness, even on oath, he has clearly stated that the petitioner was armed with Kirpan. Other co-accused were also armed. The petitioner gave lalkara that Jassi party be not allowed to go alive. It is thereafter, while the incident was being viewed by Manjit Singh, petitioner gave a kirpan blow on the Crl. Rev. No.2388 of 2008 [3] right side of head of brother of Manjit Singh (witness). Having considered the facts, I do not find that the order suffers from any legal infirmity. It is based on relevant material. The petition is dismissed. Lest this order should cause prejudice to the petitioner, it is made clear that anything said hereinabove is not an opinion on the merits of the case and the matter has been considered in the context of the impugned order only. (AJAI LAMBA) December 01, 2008 JUDGE avin