CRR No.2797 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2797 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.11.2009 Harjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a revision petition, wherein order dated 14th September, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the application of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been assailed. Brief factual background of the case is that an FIR was lodged by one Harjit Singh. He stated that he was a retired Subedar from the Army and had three children, two of whom were daughters. He was told by his wife Kuljit Kaur that Gurdial Chand alias Neetu, a resident of the locality, had illicit relations with Ramanjit Kaur, his eldest daughter. On 26th June, 2007 at about 11.00 A.M. when members of the family were away from the house, accused Gurdial Chand alias Neetu took away his daughter Ramanjit Kaur from the house with the intention of marrying her. According to the complainant, this happened in connivance of parents and other family members of Gurdial Chand, CRR No.2797 of 2009 2 namely, Darshan Lal, Asha Rani and Kamlesh Kumari. The police, thus, lodged an FIR under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC and started investigation. At the stage of trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning Darshan Lal, Asha Rani and Kamlesh Kumari to face the trial. The said application was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on 29th March, 2008 on the ground that these persons were named by Ramanjit Kaur when she stepped into the witness-box. A revision petition was preferred by the persons sought to be summoned. The revision petition (Crl. Revision No.701 of 2008) was allowed by a coordinate bench (Ranjit Singh, J.) on September 08, 2008. The impugned order was set-aside and case was remanded back to the trial court to re-examine and re-determine whether the evidence led before the court satisfied the standards laid by the apex court in case reported as Michael Machado & Anr v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 2 RCR (Criminal) 75. The Additional Sessions Judge thereafter passed the order, which is impugned in the present revision petition. The court below came to the conclusion that evidence led before it was not sufficient for the purpose of summoning additional accused, namely, Darshan Lal, Asha Rani and Kamlesh Kumari to face trial within the parameters laid down in Michael Machado's case (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that prosecutrix in her version clearly named the three additional accused and attributed specific role to them. CRR No.2797 of 2009 3 Thus, they need to be summoned to face trial. According to him, the court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence available before it for summoning additional accused. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case and perused the impugned order. The court below took into consideration the evidence of the complainant Harjit Singh, who admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter was having love affair with Gurdial Chand and that his wife had cautioned him regarding the same. Even the prosecutrix, when cross-examined, admitted the factum of her love affair with Gurdial Chand some months prior to the occurrence. The prosecutrix herself accompanied Gurdial Chand on a motor cycle. It is, thus, evident that this evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of summoning the additional accused to face trial for offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC. I am, thus, of the considered view that the court below rightly came to the conclusion that in view of the parameters laid down in Michael Machado's case (supra) by the apex court. The evidence, which had come before it, did not require summoning of Darshan Lal, Asha Rani and Kamlesh Kumari as additional accused. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. The present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 03, 2009 'rajpal'