Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.01.2009 Harjinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2/complainant. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short- “Cr.P.C”) for quashing the order dated 9.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr (Annexure P-3) vide which he has been summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.47 dated 1.7.2007 under Sections 302, 307, 379, 148 and 149 (subsequently added Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 411) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR (Annexure P-1) (translated copy) is as under:- Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Jasvir Singh son of Avtar Singh, Caste Jat, Resident of Haryana Farm, Muto, Police Station Kathgarh, District Nawanshahar, aged about 38 years, stated that I am resident of above said address and do agricultural work. We are three brothers. Our younger brother Paramjit Singh resides in Haryana. I and my brother Balbir Singh resides at Haryana. Muto. My Salehar (wife of brother-in law) Balbir Kaur wife of Har Rajwant Singh, resident of Nimda Bag after purchasing 3 Killa and 12 Marla land in village Haido-Bet had given her power of attorney to my brother Balbir Singh. Today, I along with my brother Balbir Singh, nephew Rupinder Singh, Uncle's son Amandeep Singh, Kuldeep Singh (brother-in-law of Balbir Singh) son of Piara Singh, resident of Hadla after completing the work on the said land were sitting together. In the land, which is adjacent to our land, Baldev Singh son of Badan Singh, Bupinder @ Bhinda son of Baldev Singh, Gurdev Singh, Darshan Singh, Basakha Singh, sons of Badan Singh, Ujjagar Singh son of Sardara Singh, Vicky son of Darshan Singh, Ranjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Kala son of Ujjagar Singh, residents of Ghanaula, Police Station Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Sadar Ropar and Harjinder Singh @ Jindu son of Gurnam Singh, resident of Phagwara Farm, Muto along with 5/6 unknown persons, were getting the work of sowing rice done by the Labourers and were sitting on the Motor, out of which some part of the land also belongs to us. My brother Balbir Singh told them not to sow rice in our part of the land, the demarcation would be done next week, if the land falls in your share, you can sow the rice on it. The labour finished their work and left at around 3.00 O'Clock in the day, all the above said persons, who were armed with Dangs, Sotae, Kirpans and Gandassies came shouting Lalkaras towards us and Baldev Singh said who are you to stop us from sowing the rice. Then I, in my defence, shot ¾ fires in the air from my licensed rifle of 315 bore, but they were large in number and attacked us. Baldev Singh and Bhupinder Singh armed with 'Dangs' and Gurdev Singh armed with 'Gandasi' started giving blows from the blunt side of the Dangs and Gandasis on the head of my brother Balbir Singh. My brother Balbir Singh fell down on his face in the corn fields. They kept on hitting him while he was laying on the ground. Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 4 When my nephew Rupinder Singh came to save his father, then Darshan Singh armed with 'Gandasi', Basakha Singh having 'Dang' and Harjinder Singh armed with 'Dang' hit on the head of Rupinder Singh, as result thereof he fell down in the corn fields on his face and they kept on hitting him while he lay on the grounds. Then Ujjagar Singh armed with 'kirpan' and Ranjit Singh armed with 'Gandasi' attacked on Amandeep Singh, who was standing nearby and gave injuries on his head. Then Vicky attacked me with a 'Kirpan', which hit on my right hand's thumb. Then Kala attacked me with a 'Dang' which hit on my right hand and shoulder. All the unknown persons also inflicted injuries on us, whom I can identify on being confronted. All the above said persons also inflicted injuries with the intention to kill us. My brother Balbir Singh and nephew Rupinder Singh succumb to their injuries in the corn fields of Muttali Ram. All the above said accused while shouting 'Lalkaras' went towards the Motor of Baldev Singh. While going away, they also took away my 312 bore licensed rifle as well as 12 bore licensed rifle of Balbir Singh and a revolver. I was going to intimate the incident to the Police and Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 5 when I had reached near the bridge of Sauda Majara, when your goodself met me and the statement was got recorded.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court had failed to apply its mind while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner to face the trial as an accused. In fact, there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had participated in the alleged occurrence. The matter had been duly inquired by DSP, Sub Division Balachaur and it was found, after recording statements of various witnesses, that petitioner Harjinder Singh was innocent and it was recommended that his name be kept in column No.2. S.P. (Headquarter), Nawanshahr also opined after inquiry that Harjinder Singh was innocent. SSP Nawanshahr was satisfied with the Inquiries held by S.P. (Headquarter), Nawahshahr and DSP, Sub Division, Balachaur. The trial Judge had mechanically allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without going through the entire record. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Michael Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (SC) 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 and Ram Karan @ Roda vs. State of Haryana, (P&H) 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 977. Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the head injury was attributed to three persons, whereas, during postmortem examination, only two injuries were found on the person of deceased Rupinder Singh. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the name of the petitioner was duly reflected in the FIR. When Amandeep (PW- 1) was examined during trial, he has specifically attributed a head injury to the petitioner, Harjinder Singh, on the person of Rupinder Singh with a dang. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner, Harjinder Singh, was present at the spot. He was present along with other persons and were sowing rice. He had allegedly inflicted a dang blow on the head of deceased Rupinder Singh. During the inquiry conducted by the police, pending investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and his name was reflected in Column No.2 at the time of presentation of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Amandeep Singh, when he appeared in the witness box as PW-1, has specifically attributed a head injury on the person of deceased Rupinder Singh by the petitioner. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Criminal Misc. No.M-18020 of 2008 (O&M) 7 petitioner that although head injuries on the person of the deceased were attributed to three persons by PW-1 Amandeep and in the FIR but only two injuries were found on the head of the deceased would more appropriately be considered and decided during trial. It would be proved during trial as to which of the accused was responsible for causing the head injuries on the person of the deceased. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are on different facts. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that because merely on the basis of suspicion a person cannot be summoned to face the trial. At this stage, there is prima facie material on record, which was sufficient for the trial Court to summon the petitioner to face the trial as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the learned trial Court had merely summoned the petitioner on account of suspicion. Rather, from the material available on record, there were sufficient grounds to summon the petitioner to face the trial along with other accused. The effect of police inquiries would also be more appropriately gone into during trial. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 08, 2009 anita